Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/2010

Action of 9 February 1799

This article covers the first battle of the Quasi-War. I am nominating this article for a peer review since i am thinking of nominating it for featured article status. Since it failed its last featured article review, yet i addressed most if not all of the comments the reviewers had made, I am wondering what further changes need to be made to the article so that it will pas the FAR. Thanks!XavierGreen (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

hchc2009

There are a few copy-editing points, which I'll try to run through tomorrow night. In the meantime, how good is your French? There are a couple of books on Google which give some interesting details on the incident from the French perspective, but they're in French - e.g. here, here and here. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Two of the links lead to the same book same page. The second link has nothing more than a very brief description of the battle, forussing more on the political context and situation at the time.
• The first/third link claims that the very poor leadership of the French captain, led to the serious loss of command and control of the ship. The crew were each trying to fight their own battle, some demanding boarding action, but no maneuver was ordered for either. While some maneuver was finally carried out, the order to cease fire was given by the captain.
• After the battle the captain was on trial in France, but was declared not guilty of all charges.
  • I hope this helps. D2306 (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, a quick gist follows:

Troude (p.168) feels that the US effectively declared war under the pretext of the privateering question (i.e. this was a phony reason for their action). He notes that Barreaut wouldn't have been aware of the US action when he set sail from Guadeloupe. He also describes the chaos on the packed French ship when the fighting broke out (p.169). Barreaut was apparently put on court-martial afterwards in October 1799, for having not put up sufficient resistance to the Americans - he was acquitted.(pp169-170)

Bonnel describes Truxtun reporting afterwards that Barreaut had complained to him that the US had declared war on France by attacking his ship; that was fine by the French commander, however, as Barreaut declared that "je deteste les choses faites a moitie" - "I hate doing things by halves" (or "I hate leaving things half done") (pg.98). Truxton gave credit to Barreaut for his courage during the battle.(pg.98)

• Ive now added much of this information to the article.XavierGreen (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hchc2009 (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Copy-editing points follow:

• "Following the outbreak..." - a fairly long sentence. Is it worth breaking after "vessels"?
  • Done.
• "Of the four squadrons, one under the..." would "One of the squadrons under the command of..." sound more natural?
  • Done.
• "At noon on 9 February while cruising independently..." I'd go for an alternative to "cruising independently" - its a fairly specific naval term that might throw a non-naval reader.
  • I changed it to sailing independent.
• "began to flee towards Saba and Sint Eustatius" - the locations are wikilinked, but I'd find it helpful if it said "the French islands of Saba and Eustatius", or something like that to explain a bit more.
  • Done.
• "French attempts at hailing her" - was this the gun that they fired in the previous sentence?
  • Yes i tweaked the sentence to reflect that.
• "However, having..." I'd recommend not starting with a "however".
  • Done.
• "Constellation crossed L'Insurgente's bow" - I'd be inclined to start this paragraph with a sentence like "The two ships engaged in a gun battle." - or words like that. It will make the subsequent sparring easier to follow.
  • They were already engaged before that though, crossing the Insurgents bow allowed Constellation to gain an advantage over the french vessel as the american frigate could fire a raking broadside down the whole length of the ship while Insurgente could not fire a broadside in reply as her guns were not facing the Constellation.XavierGreen (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• "The damage to the French frigate had been immense from both the storm and Constellation's guns." I'd reverse this sentence, making the verbs more active: "The storm and the battle had caused immense damage to the French frigate."
  • Done.
• "Of those killed..." > "Of those Americans killed..."
  • Done.
• "separated from the captured frigate in a squall" > "by a squall"?
  • Changed it to storm.
• "the comparatively large number of French prisoners " Comparatively large to the number of guards?
  • I fixed this I believe.
• " and Governor Edme Étienne Borne Desfourneaux of GuadelouIpe demanded that L'Insurgente be returned to French control since the two countries were not officially at war." Would "...and since the two countries were not at war, Governor... demanded..." sound more flowing?
  • Done.

Hope that helps. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• • It does help immensly, thanks for your review. My French skills are non-existant, do you know if the French accounts vary from the American ones? I know they do not substantially for Constellations action against Vengence, but that they do for Bostons engagement against Bercau.XavierGreen (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Magicpiano

It looks pretty good to me, but then I also usually have prose issues at FAC. You mention in the lead that the ship is renamed, but do not cover this in the body. I'm wondering if the new name should be used for things after its renaming? Magic♪piano 22:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Nice catch, Ive now added that info to the aftermath section. For events that occured in her American service I've used the name Insurgent and for French service ive left it as L'Insurgente.XavierGreen (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sinyavin Offensive (1942)

(old peer review here)

I would like to improve this article further to nominate it for GA and later A-Class. I think I have done everything from the previous peer review almost a year ago. I guess the weak points are style, but I am not sure. D2306 (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Good work so far. Just a few presentation suggestions from me as I have no content knowledge:

• per WP:MOSHEAD the capitalisation of the "German Plans" and "Soviet Plans" headers is incorrect. It should be "German plans" and "Soviet plans";Done
• the first paragraph in the Aftermath is uncited and should at least have a citation at the end of the paragraph;Done
• the citations for the order of battle are a little unclear to me. It might be clearer if a citation was placed after the "German" and "Soviet" headers in The order of battle section;Done
• in the Notes section "Glantz p. 212-213" is different from "Meretskov pp. 301–302". Presentation style here should be the same, thus I suggest adding an endash and using "pp." where multiple pages are used as the source;Done
• Citation # 23 "Haupt W. Army Group North. The Wehrmacht in Russia 1941–1945" is presented differently to all the others. It should be the same;Done
• Is there a page number that could be added for Citation # 25 "Haupt"?
• I think the three columns for the References makes it a little hard for the reader. I would suggest just one column for the References. Three columns for the Notes is okay, though;Done
• in the References section the dates for "Manstein (1955 (2004))" are a little awkward. You can show these two dates more cleanly by using the following code "|origyear=1955 |year=2004" within the cite book template. This will show up as "(2004) [1955]". DoneAustralianRupert (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • All done except for the page number for "Haupt". I no longer have the book, so I can't get the page number. If you think it's better I could simply say the operation was due to begin on September 14 and cite Isayev for it. D2306 (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think that would be best if you want to put it up for GA. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Done

Operation Iskra

I would like some advice on improvements to this article. It seems it is weak in grammar and has problems with citations, and I think with some style improvements I could get it to GA. D2306 (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Hi, I have the following suggestions:

• the first paragraph in the Background section is completely uncited and needs at least a citation at the end of the paragraph;Done
• the first paragraph in the German Preparations section is uncited and needs at least a citation at the end of the paragraph;Done
• in the Soviet Preparations section, this needs a citation: "This meant recapturing the "bottleneck" and opening a 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) corridor to Leningrad. After that, the two fronts were to rest for 10 days and resume the offensive southward in further operations.";Done
• the "German Preparations" and "Soviet Preparations" section headers are incorrectly capitalised. Per MOS:HEAD they should be "German preparations" and "Soviet preparations" as they are not proper nouns;Done
• in the Front line stablises section, this needs a citation "There was no changes in the front line after January 21. The Soviet forces were unable to advance any further and started fortifying the area the thwart any German at reestablishing the blockade. The operation officially ended on January 30.";Done
• in the Front line stablises section, this is grammatically incorrect "There was no changes in the front...". It should be "There were no changes...";Done
• in the Aftermath, this needs a citation: "However the city was still subject to at least a partial siege, as well as air and artillery bombardment, until the Leningrad-Novgorod Offensive broke through the German lines, lifting the siege completely in January 1944";Done
• Citation # 6 "p.128, Glantz" is a different format to the others which use Author then page numbers. These should be the same format;Done
• the three columns for the References is probably too many in my opinion, one would be fine given that there are only six works, but if it is required two would be okay;Done
• the Further reading section should be formatted so that it is presented in the same style as the References section;Done
• the page ranges in the citations should have endashes per WP:DASH;Done
• the citations with page ranges should probably be "pp." rather than just "p." as that is usually used to denote a single page.Done AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • All fixed. Thanks for the advice.D2306 (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC);
  • Is the article B-class now? D2306 (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Cold War

old peer review:here

I just wandering, what's really keeping this article from FA status?--Macarenses (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

That's a good question to ask about any detailed article. My comments are:

• The article is unduly focused on the US and USSR and tends to portray the western and Soviet blocks as single bodies, when it reality there were diverse experiences of the Cold War worldwide and important disagreements among national governments and within nations. For instance, France and the UK sought to further their own geopolitical goals wherever possible and by the 1980s there were considerable divisions within many western democracies about the seeming escalation of the Cold War (which lead to events such as large-scale anti-nuclear movement in Europe and New Zealand effectively breaking off its Alliance with the US)
• The coverage of the military balance seems rather limited. In particular, relatively little attention is given to how the prospect of nuclear war affected international relations.
• Stating that the opponent of the Soviet bloc was the 'Western world' is dubious - I fail to see how strongly anti-Communist countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan and Iran (to name just four) were in any meaningful sense 'western'. Done
• Stating that China's involvement in the Cold War was to launch "its own independent campaign against the US" is so massively over-simplified as to be outright wrong Done
• "Soviet relations with the West further deteriorated when, one week prior to the start of World War II, the Soviet Union and Germany signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" - alternatively, signing a de-facto alliance with leading western power which then went on to dominate most of Europe could be seen as greatly improving the USSR's relationship with 'the west'. I think the article means something like the 'western democracies'. Done
• The discussion of the relationship between the USSR and the US and UK from June 1941 to the end of World War II stresses points of disunity and ignores the fairly extensive cooperation during this period (which actually extended to government propaganda campaigns in the UK and US praising the Soviet Government!).  Done
• The discussion of the various conferences also presents the Western Allies as a single block, when in reality there were important areas of difference in the negotiations between Roosevelt and Churchill's views. Done
• "communists attempted to disrupt the elections of 1948 preceding large losses therein" - where were these elections held? This wording is also very formal and unclear. Done
• "That August, Stalin ordered the detonation of the first Soviet atomic device" - this implies that the Soviet atomic bomb effort was a reaction to the formation of NATO, which is wrong. It's also rather odd to emphasize that "Stalin ordered" the test - the test was essential to prove that the Soviets' bomb design worked.  Done
• Why is the British Attorney General's views of opponents to the Korean War emphasised? He was hardly an important figure in the war, and his views are presented without the reason for opposition to the war being articulated (which seems rather more important). Done
• The coverage of the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian Revolution should discuss the important impact this had on Communist and Communist-aligned political parties in the west; in many cases their membership collapsed never to recover. The shocked public response to the repression also hardened attitudes against the USSR in many countries. Done
• The coverage of France's withdrawal from NATO is rather brief and simplistic Done
• File:Cold War Map 1980.svg seems highly dubious - most of the countries identified as being 'Other allies of the USA' weren't formally 'allied' with the US. Including South Africa in this category, for instance, is clearly wrong. Overall the map is hopelessly simplistic and should be removed.  Done
• The claim that "previously, the US had relied on the qualitative superiority of its weapons, but the gap had been narrowed" is highly dubious and cited to something published by a Conservative think-tank (the Heritage Foundation) in 1983. This should probably be removed.  Done
• "Ronald Reagan began massively building up the United States military not long after taking office" - I believe that this build-up began under Carter as a response to the invasion of Afghanistan. Reagan accelerated the build-up. Done
• Labeling Iraq a "longtime Soviet ally" is rather dubious given the extent of US and Western European support for Iraq during the 1980s. Done
• The statement that the US "had 1.5 million troops posted abroad in 117 countries" by 1989 is rather misleading as the only US military presence in a large number (most?) of those countries were small detachments of marines responsible for the security of the US embassy. Almost all these personnel were stationed in Europe, South Korea and Japan.  Done
• "The Cold War also institutionalized a global commitment to huge, permanent peacetime military-industrial complexes" - is also questionable, given that most countries had large permanent militaries by the 19th Century at the latest.  Done
• Why are the American fatalities in the Korean and Vietnam wars the only casualty figures quoted? Good estimates of casualties in these wars for many other countries (most notably North and South Vietnam and Korea) are available for these wars, for instance, along with figures for many of the proxy wars.
• The paragraph which begins 'No separate campaign medal has been authorized for the Cold War' is focused on a minor issue in the US and should be removed  Done Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo

• 1c/2c issues: Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• I used a combination of terse wikiFAC jargon and academic jargon. I reviewed source quality and citation formatting quality. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Using Transaction Press for internal history of Soviet Union, Transaction is a known poisoned press; Christenson, Ron (1991). Political trials in history: from antiquity to the present. Transaction Publishers. - Replaced Citation, hopes this one is good enough--Macarenses (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• <ref name="denson">{{Cite book|last=Rico|first=Ralph|title=The Costs of War: America's Pyrrhic Victories|editor=Denson, John V.|publisher=Transaction Publishers|location=New Brunswick, N.J.|date=31 May 1997|edition=1st|page=258|chapter=Rethinking Churchill|isbn=1560003197|oclc=36011765|url=http://books.google.com/?id=WbJNNPgcrykC&pg=PA258&lpg=PA258&dq=stalin+nickname+uncle+joe|accessdate=21 September 2008}}</ref> New transaction press source being used. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Transaction sources should not be used, except for the opinions of their authors, where their opinions are notable due to the application of the author's opinion to their own politics / work. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Done

• Using Gorbachev (primary source) for fact.

• Gorbachev is a primary source when speaking about his own career. He cannot be used for fact as a result. The fact should be sought in another work. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Done

• Probable primary source: Hanhimaki, Jussi; Westad, Odd Arne (2003). And if it isn't a primary, then it is almost certainly an inappropriate use of top-and-tail not highly scholarly sections of a source book. Usually scholar source book scholarly introductions are good; less so body context which is pedagogically focused framing, rather than scholarly opinion.

• Hanhimaki and Westad is a source book, a compilation of primary sources. It shouldn't be used to cite fact, as it is a primary source. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Done

• Probably tertiary aimed at non scholars: Jacobs, Dale (2002)

• Tertiary sources (dictionaries, encyclopaedia) shouldn't be used. Jacobs is a tertiary source. Replace with a reliable secondary source. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Done

• Publisher not in the business of scholarly publishing, HQRS failure: Kolb, Richard K. (2004). And it isn't cited Done
• Inappropriate use of primary: Kennan, George F.  Done
• Opinion piece used for fact: Muravchik, Joshua (1996). Done
• Trailing punctuation after some citations in body text

• Citations should look like this: "had a nice puppy.[40]" They shouldn't look like this "had a nice puppy.[40]." Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Done

• Inappropriate tertiary: Smith, Joseph; Davis, Simon (2005).

• Tertiary sources should be used rarely with care. Smith and Davis is not an appropriate use. Seek the fact in a secondary source. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)  Done

• Known undergraduate textbook publisher: Taubman, William (2004). Tucker, Robert C. (1992). (WW Norton) My error Fifelfoo (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Undergraduate textbooks (WW Norton is an undergraduate textbook publisher), are tertiary sources. Seek a secondary source for the fact. Fifelfoo

(talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense: Norton is top of the line and Taubman won the Pulitzer prize for his biography. Holt is likewise a famous old mainstream publisher and the Walker book is a well-reviewed overview. Rjensen (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that its obviously reliable, in twelve years I have only encountered Norton as a textbook publisher. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• How is H. Holt a scholarly press: Walker, Martin (1995). The Cold War: A History. H. Holt. Asked, answered and resolved fully. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I do not believe H. Holt to be an appropriate publisher. If you can demonstrate it publishes academic works, then it is fine. Normally personally named presses "H. Holt" "F. Fifelfoo" "J. Bloggs" indicate self publication. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Done

Henry Holt & Co was founded in 1866 and has published thousands of important books. People might want to look at the Wikipedia article before they make bad assumptions. Rjensen (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for sorting that and indicating its a HQRS, I've not encountered this publisher previously and its name rang bells due to being a personal name with initial. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Full cite required in bibliography: Åslund, Anders (1990). (needs publisher) ; Gorbechev, Mikhail (1996). (Author misspelt) ; Hennessy, Peter. (incorrect date format) ; Halliday, Fred (2001). (subtitle) ; Shearman, Peter (1995). (publisher misspelt) ; Stone, Norman. (completely out of style, commentary in citation, no publisher) ; Done

• I hope the additional comments help with my wikiFAC jargon and academic jargon? Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895)

OK, here goes. I put this up for a wiki-wide review yesterday, then remembered that MilHist has a PR system. Sevastopol is a Russian battleship. I've nurutred this article from red link to GA, and would like to see it go further. Buggie111 (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Australian Rupert

Sorry, not much from me with this review (I made a couple of minor tweaks):

• the Advisor script reports that the ISBN for the Spector work might be incorrect. Can you please check this?
  • Done. Buggie111 (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• are there years for the Balakin and Taras works?
• I found the date on the introduction in Taras, although I don't know it's for the entire book (December 31, 1999). Nothing on Taras. Buggie111 (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• could OCLC numbers be added for the Balakin, Taras and Wood works? Worldcat might have this information;
  • It has Wood, nothing else. Buggie111 (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• could a location be added for the publisher of the Taras work?
  • Nope. None in the book or on the web where I looked. Buggie111 (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• in the References section, Gardiner should appear before Halpern (alphabetical order);
  • Done. Buggie111 (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• in the Notes section, if you replace "<references group="Note"/>" with "{{reflist|group=Note}}" it will present the footnote in the same sized font as the Citations.
  • Done. Buggie111 (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Ebelsberg

I have written many Class B articles, but this is the first time that I've nominated one of my articles for peer review. I believe that I have thoroughly covered the subject. Djmaschek (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hchc2009

The "background" section probably needs to explain a little bit more about the context to the battle. The sorts of things the opening sentences could explain would be what the wider conflict was etc. A lot of this material is in the lead, but isn't in the main article itself. It might also be worth describing the terrain/geography a bit - if the reader didn't know anything about southern Germany in spring-time, what sort of backdrop should they be imagining? Mountainous? River valleys? etc.

In the "result" section, you describe what happened next, but not the significance of it to the campaign. e.g. Did it make a big difference to the war? etc. A little bit more "so-what" analysis here would round the article off really nicely.

Hope that's useful. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I added the "On 10 April..." paragraph immediately after the Background header to start at the beginning of the campaign. I also added the "Napoleon was aware..." paragraph in Results for significance, and 3 sentences to Commentary which also address significance. As far as geography, there is an existing sentence in Fight for Ebelsberg, "Yet, Ebelsberg was an excellent..." which briefy describes geography to which I've added extra geographic clues ("snow-melt swollen river", "hill-top castle", "up the street to the left"). Could you or someone else have a re-look? Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The background para works nicely - I reckon it's a much smoother intro to the piece. The extra clues also worked better for me. Best of luck with the transition to Good Article review (where I'm hoping it will be progressing in due course...) Hchc2009 (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Interstate TDR

Just created this article on a very intriguing (and arguably important!) topic the other day, already reached GA, but, heck, why not try for more? :) I'd like to get a guideline on what needs improving to push for A-class (or FA...) so any and all comments, critiques and suggestions are appreciated. Thanks! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is a fascinating and well written article on a weapon that was well before it's time. My suggestions for improvements are:

• The article is a bit short - can anything be added?
• "only around 200 were built" seems to contradict the exact figure of 195 in the infobox (which in turn contradicts the figure of 189 in the 'operational history' section
• Why did the USN want these aircraft and what role were they intended to play? Was the USN worried about the abilities of torpedo bombers to penetrate AA defences?
• Did they Navy intend to fly them from carriers or land bases? (or both?)
• What targets were these drones used against? Was any use made of their ability to drop torpedoes? (which seems particularly ambitious given that weeks to training was needed for pilots in conventional aircraft to have any chance of hitting moving targets with torpedoes)
• It might be worth appealing for someone to provide a photo of the surviving aircraft Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66

• I'd have to agree with Nick that more operational details are needed. What did they attack and where, in detail?
• Were they really torpedo-capable or did they just have the ability to lift one.
• More details would be nice about the origins of the program. Was it backburnered before Pearl, etc?
• He's covered just about all the other points that I'd like to see.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Replies

• I may actually be able to get a pic of the surviving aircraft myself in a month or two, we'll see. Otherwise, thanks, and I'll see what I can do about those comments. Thanks muchly! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pic of the surviving aircraft found, verified as PD, and added to Commons (and the article). - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • As for the number built - the "around 200" was meant to be a general round-ish number for the intro, but I can change that if it would work better with the exact number. As for 195 in the infobox vs. 189 in the operational-history section: 189 TDR-1 aircraft were built; the 195 includes the two XTDR-1s, three XTD3R-1s, and the lone XTD3R-2. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sword

Creating subpage for IP user, Woody (talk) 10:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Woody! As per Aeonx's advise, I'm requesting a peer review of Sword as it has been edited heavily recently with many references, links, images, grammar corrections and structural changes made. This changes already promoted the article from start to B-class. It was then that it was suggested a peer review might provide a more thorough feedback as to what should be improved with the article.

IMO, there are still many claims and assertions in the article that require proper citation,some paragraphs and sections need restructuring, and some sections should be added- especially a "making of swords" section or something of the sort.

As a Vital Article I would be glad to see it improved, if anyone cares to help with article it will be appreciated.

I expect there are many issues which escaped my notice and I'm looking forward to your reviews, thx.--84.229.106.220 (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

A very interesting article. Although I don't have specific content knowledge, I have the following comments/suggestions:

• in the Bronze Age section, "middle-east" should be "Middle East" as it is a proper noun;- Done
• in the Bronze Age section, the abbreviation "UK" appears without being first formally introduced, e.g. "United Kingdom (UK)";- Done
• in the Bronze Age section, this sentence needs work: "The earliest available Bronze age swords of copper discovered from the Harappan sites in present-day Pakistan that date back to 2300 BC";- Done
• in the Bronze Age section, "1700-1400 BC" should have an endash per WP:DASH;- Done
• in the Bronze Age section, the caption for the second image should be capitalised at the start: "the swords found together with the Nebra skydisk, ca. 1600 BC";- Done
• in the Iron Age section, this sentence needs work: "Iron became increasingly common from the 13th century BC, Mainly due to the collapse of the bronze producing Civilizations" (capitalisation of "Mainly" is the issue here);- Done
• in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance section, some of the citations appear before punctuation, however per WP:PAIC they should come after. E.g. here: "A number of manuscripts covering longsword combat and techniques dating from the 13th-16th centuries exist in German[29], Italian, and English[30], providing extensive";- Done
• in the Terminology section, the dot pointed list in the Blade subsection needs more citations (particularly at the end of the paragraphs); Done
• in the Terminiology section, this sentence needs a citation: "From the 18th century onwards, swords intended for slashing, i.e., with blades ground to a sharpened edge, have been curved with the radius of curvature equal to the distance from the swordman's body at which it was to be used. This allowed the blade to have a sawing effect rather than simply delivering a heavy cut. European swords, intended for use at arm's length, had a radius of curvature of around a meter. Middle Eastern swords, intended for use with the arm bent, had a smaller radius.";-Tell me about it!, I've spent hours trying to verify this claim. Will try again soon!
• in the Typology section, this sentence needs a citation: "Swords can fall into categories of varying scope. The main distinguishing characteristics include blade shape (cross-section, taper, and length), shape and size of hilt and pommel, age, and place of origin"; Done
• the Swords in history list needs some more citations; Done
• the Swords of myth and legend section needs more citations; Done
• the Swords of modern fiction section needs more citations; Done
• in the Bibliography section, the titles should be capitalised in accordance with WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles, e.g. "Stage combat resource materials: a selected and annotated bibliography" should be "Stage Combat Resource Materials: A Selected and Annotated Bibliography";- Done
• in the Bibliography section, the title of the Withers work should be in italics and the year should appear directly after the author's name;- Done
• in the Further reading section, the title should not be presented in capital letters;- Done
• the citation style seems a little confusing to me, I'd recommend using short citations for the inline citations and include the full bibliographic details in the Bibliography per WP:CITESHORT, although it is a matter of personal preference and shouldn't really prevent promotion of the article at GA if you take it there (they need to be consistent, though);
• I recommend putting in a request to have the article copy edited by someone from the Guild of Copy editors if you haven't already done so. The request can be made here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests;- Done
• there appears to be a mixture of US and British English variations, for instance "armor" (US), "center" (US), "defense" (US), "armoured" (British), "armour" (British) - either variation is fine, but the article should be consistent;- Done
• there is a lot of whitespace on my screen because of the placement of the images on the right. If someof them were alternated (some left, some right), this whitespace might be fixed; Done
• watch out for overlinking terms, the general rule is that a term can be linked once in the lead, once in the infobox and once in the prose. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, mate! I've addressed some of the issues and will address the rest shortly.--84.229.106.220 (talk) 08:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Aeonx

I'll review the article more thoroughly later, but for now I've listed a few points for improvement that I noticed earlier when assessing.

• Try to find ISBN or OCLC numbers (or both) for each book reference used, some references are missing this information. Done
• In regards to WP:Layout and content:
  • The lead can be expanded by 1 paragraph; for a large topic/article like this a 3-paragraph lead is acceptable; although I would probably not go to 4.
  • I would perhaps include a section for 'Modern Day use' Done
  • The section for 'Punishment device' I don't think deserves to be a level 2 section; the history-aspects should be incorporated into History and the Executioner's sword is really more a type (so under Typology I guess) Done
  • The Further reading sub-section needs to contain a better list of resources.
    • For suggestions, you might be able to find online notable websites with sword details or even a list of books on swords recommended by academics or enthusiasts in the field. Done
  • The See also section includes far too many links to asian martial arts, this list should be revised to alternative topics that are of most interest Done
• The right-hand side of the article is over-balanced with images, they should be roughly alternated (or paired) across either side of the page. (generally don't alternate within the same sub-section though) Done
• Major Point: This article, and the majority of sword-related articles, could really benefit from a navigation box;
  • For an example in a related topic, see: Template:Knives; - Though I do not believe this is a particularly good example to base swords on.
  • Generally I've seen navboxes roughly based around categories, but this varies, it may be better to separate types of Swords by historical period? Not really sure. Done

Aeonx (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Very good points, about the navbox- I'm thinking either by geographical location(Europe, Americas, Asia and such..) and within each section the sword will be named in chronological order or by historical Eras and geographical subsections. I'm more inclined towards the former since I believe most readers who'll use the navbox will want to check some peculiar sword or another from a specific region- it will also fix the problem of swords that have been used and modified during the centuries- like the katana,longsword and even the kukri.--84.229.106.220 (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yoenit

Hey, I don't have time to do a detailed review at the moment, but I will post my observations with regards to the structure of the article:

• Get rid of the "Famous swords" lists, they do not belong in a general article. A prose section about the symbolic value of the sword (which is currently missing) could probably integrate many of the examples and just link to List of swords for the rest.
• "Punishment devices" section should be integrated with history. Either that or expand it and write similar sections for other sword applications (ceremonial swords, military swords, coathanger, etc)  Done
• I am not sure what the intention behind "typology" section is, but it seems rather incomplete and listy.
• History section seems to focus to much on Europe. It might actually be a good idea to create separate history sections for Europe & Asia as they seem to have developed independent from each other (maybe also for the middle east & india, but I know very little about that).  Done

Overall I see a definite improvement of the article since the last time I read it, but there is still a lot of work to do. Yoenit (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

First and Second Battle of Wonju

A little known but important campaign of the Korean War. I have two concerns about this article. First one is the lack French side of the story even through this is a famous action of the French Battalion in the Korean War. Second is my lack of experience on covering an anti-guerrilla campaign in a MILHIST article. I would appreciate any inputs into those two concerns and any other criticisms. Jim101 (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Sorry, I can't comment much on the content, but it looks pretty good to me. I have made a few tweaks, but also have the following suggestions:

• in the lead, "the North Korean forces at the central and the eastern front were effectively decimated..." ("central and eastern fronts" - plural, I think?);

• Fixed

• in the Background section, "...After launching a surprise invasion against South Korea at June 1950..." ("in June 1950" perhaps?)

• Fixed

• in the Background section, "....with the remnants of the KPA fled northward while seeking sanctuaries along the mountainous regions at the Sino-Korean border" ("fleeing northward..." - agreement issue with the word "fled")

• Fixed

• in the Background section, "...and the shattered North Korean forces soon rebuilt its strength at the end of 1950" ("soon rebuilt their strength" or "were soon rebuilt" - there is currently a disagreement between "forces" and "its" - singular v plural);

• Fixed

• in the Background section, "...13th Army's action would later resulted in the..." (I suggest changing to "would later result in...");

• Fixed

• in the Forces and strategy section, "...nearly 45,000 casualties at the end of 1950..." (I suggest changing to "by the end of 1950");

• Fixed

• in the Forces and strategy section, "...Wonju while transferring the division under US X Corps control..." (I suggest changing to "while placing the division under US X Corps control...");

• Fixed

• in the Forces and strategy section, "...during the opening of the battle" (I suggest changing to "...during the opening phase of the battle");

• Fixed

• in the Aftermath section, I think you should include a specific figure for UN casualties rather than just saying they were "moderate". In the infobox the figure of 600 US casualties included, I think that this should be included in the Aftermath at least. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• This is tricky point. The US 600 causality figure is a rough estimation using Ecker's data. The exact US causality number (or the numbers of major formations involved) is unclear due to the nature of irregular warfare, but the raw unit-by-unit data provided by Ecker suggested that they won't be higher than 600. However, the majority of the UN casualties during the battle are from South Korean units, and they don't have casualty data until the fall 1951. The only thing I can find that comments on the entire UN casualties are the description "moderate" provided by Ecker. I would appreciate it if someone has a more detailed research on the subject or to provide more context on the matter.

Thanks for the comments. Jim101 (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that does make things difficult. My only suggestion here is that perhaps you could include this discussion in a Footnote after the sentence about "moderate" casualties. That might help get around the issue if you decide to take the article to a higher review. Anyway, keep up the good work. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. Jim101 (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ian Rose

Unfortunately I'm no expert on either of the areas for which you've asked input. In general though, this looks very comprehensive and well-structured/referenced/illustrated. It's certainly appears worth taking to GAR, and probably ACR as well. As far as the French side of things goes, it might be worth giving Ed! a poke if you haven't already, as he's written many Korean War articles and may have come across some other sources for this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Magdhaba

This article has been substantially rewritten including references, citations and illustrations. Could a peer review please reassess its ranking? --Rskp (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Very interesting article in my opinion, and you've clearly invested a lot of time and effort in it, which is great to see. I believe that it is up to B class standard (although as per below there is one sentence that needs a citation). I have the following comments/suggestions, many of which are just nitpicking style/presentation comments which would help to take it to a higher rating (apologies for the long list):

• The lead is one paragraph too long. According to WP:LEAD, it should be no more than four paragraphs. Is there a way that you could consolidate one?
• If you are keen, I suggest requesting someone from the Guild of Copy Editors (requests made here) take a run through the article as they will be able to tighten up the prose a little. This will help for higher reviews like GA and beyond. For instance, the first two paragraphs of the lead are both single sentences. These could possibly be broken up in to a couple of sentences and consolidated;
• Be careful with where you insert wikilinks. It should usually be upon first mention. For instance, in the lead Ottoman Army is mentioned in the second paragraph, but it is not wikilinked until the third paragraph (should be shifted in my opinion);
• Be careful with the placement of commas. I think in some sentences they break up the flow of the prose as they have been used a little too much (a good copy editor would be able to help with this though);
• If possible, please try to insert more wikilinks. The Preamble section has none at all, but you could link the American Civil War, as well as possibly some of the locations;
• When discussing bodies such as "the War Office", I think you need to clarify what country's War Office, as this will help establish a neutral point of view in the article;
• there seems to be a mixture of US and British English used in the article, for instance "theaters" (US), but also "labour" (British), this should be consistent;
• terms like "Australian Flying Corps", "First Battle of the Marne" could be wikilinked;
• some of the distances could have conversion templates added (these show miles and kilometres, or also yards and metres, etc), such as that which is used in the lead;
• quotations should be encased in double quotation marks, not single per Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE#Quotation marks, however, please see the next comment;
• I'm not sure about using observations from individual soldiers, such as that of Ingham's about Chauvel's return. In this case it probably is not necessary. If it were about a pivotal point, maybe, but in this case I'm not sure that it is so I would suggest removing it and either replacing with your own words or leaving it out altogether;
• It is probably not necessary to always be so formal with use of ranks. On first mention use of the rank is fine, but subsequently it would be fine to simply use the subject's surname. For instance "Major General Chauvel" could simply be "Chauvel" after first being introduced;
• in the Prelude section, I suggest removing the dot points about Murray's appreciation of the Ottoman Army's reactions and just converting it to prose;
• use of the word "exposures" might be a little esoteric for some readers, might be simpler just to say "photographs";
• in the Advance to El Arish section, "Lines of Communication" should this be capitalised as such? Only proper nouns should be fully capitalised. Additionally, it might be a term that could be wikilinked;
• in the Ottoman defences at Magdhaba section, this clause seems not to agree: "...with the main defending force consisted of two battalions, each of about 600 men..." ("consisted" is the issue here, probably should be "consisting");
• in the Ottoman defences at Magdhaba section, "Flying Squadrons" - should this be capitalised as such? Only proper nouns should be capitalised;
• in the Ottoman defences at Magdhaba section, the date format is slightly inconsistent with the Manual of Style, e.g. "22 December, 1916" should be "22 December 1916" (no comma required for DD Month Year format);
• in the Ottoman defences at Magdhaba section, the following sentence needs a citation: "And they were unaware of the imminent arrival of a new British commander who had the forethought and logistical organisational abilities of Lieutenant General Chetwode and his staff";
• in the Battle section, the individual aircraft squadrons could possibly be wikilinked;
• in the Battle section, it might be more expedient to state that air reports were received "at regular intervals from 0750 until 1515", rather than the providing the long list of times;
• in the Battle section, "...The attack was carried out with great skill and boldness, every man showing an intelligent appreciation of the situation and fearless confidence in himself and his comrades" - this is possibly a little too much for an encyclopedia. We need to be careful not to take sides in our presentation of the facts;
• in the Battle section, "...bad shooting by the defenders being responsible for light casualties" could probably be reworded to say "inaccurate shooting...";
• in the Other views of the engagement section, I'd suggest removing the bulleted list and converting to formal prose, most of which should probably just be included in the Battle section, or possibly in the Aftermath;
• in the Aftermath section, "22nd December" should be changed to "22 December" per the Manual of Style which objects to the use of ordinal suffixes for dates;
• in the Aftermath section, there are a number of small paragraphs that could probably be consolidated;
• in the Aftermath section, "24 December, 1916" should be "24 December 1916" (no need for the comma);
• in the Aftermath section, "He reportedly said that in the history of war, he had never known cavalry to not only located and surrounded the enemy's position, but to dismount and fight as infantry with rifle and bayonet" - there is some disagreement with the verbs here (past tense endings in "ed" are the issue here);
• in the Aftermath section, "British Navy" is not a proper noun, so it should either be "British navy" or "British Royal Navy";
• in the Aftermath section, there is inconsistency in capitalisation of terms such as "Officer" and "Other Ranks", e.g "17 Other Ranks" and "36 other ranks" - these should be consistent, and I think as they are not proper nouns, they should be lower case;
• in the Aftermath section, there is inconsitency in the capitalisation of the term "Dressing Station", sometimes you have "Dressing Station" and then "dressing station" - I think it should be lower case as it is not a proper noun;
• some of the images could be left aligned to break up the text a little (suggestion only);
• the References could be formatted using the {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} templates. This would give them a cleaner appearance and would allow you to embed the url links into the titles if you so wish (suggestion only). AustralianRupert (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I have addressed most of the problems and hope the article can attract a good evaluation. But in the case of the Trooper Ingham quote, I do agree that his words don't enhance the issue at that point very much. But he does reflect the confidence and optimism the troops had to have, to be able to take the fight to a garrison so far from their own base in such arid conditions. --Rskp (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Siege of Beijing Legation Quarter

This article has been rated "start" class, but I completely re-wrote and expanded it and I believe that it deserves reassessment. As a relatively new user of Wikipedia, I am also interested in a critique of my work and suggestions that will enable me to write top quality articles. This is the first article that I have submitted for review.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallchief (talk • contribs) 14:11, 4 November 2010

Anotherclown

• Overall this is a good article, although there is probably a bit more to be done to get it to B class. Specifically:
  • A number of sentences at the end of your paragraphs are completely uncited, you should consider adding inline citations for these;
  • Some of your paragraphs are very short and should be linked together for better prose (I have been bold and had a go at a couple of these);
  • You should consider using the structure suggested in WP:MILMOS/C (specifically: Background, Prelude, Battle, Aftermath) for article structure; and
  • The infobox needs to be completed: specifically adding commanders, force strengths, casualties etc (where available). Anotherclown (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I'll deal with those issues. Smallchief 12:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Intothatdarkness

• Not a bad article start, but there are some issues.
  • Your summary of the Boxers doesn't quite sync up with the Boxer Movement entry, especially in terms of the origin of the movement. You might consider revising it or just going with a link to the Boxer movement.
  • Some of the wording is awkward. For example, the sentence "The Chinese first attempted to extinguish the foreigners in the Legation Quarter by fire." really doesn't work for me in terms of tone. It might be better to say something like "The besieging forces first attempted to break the Legation Quarter by setting fires around its perimeter."
  • Agree with the comment about more citing. One example is the comment about "trigger-happy foreign soldiers" alienating the Chinese population. Also, the term "trigger-happy" might be replaced with "unrestricted firing" or something similar.
  • Agree that more force strength information is needed. It may be difficult to come by for the Chinese forces, but the Legation strengths are out there and are well-documented.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I'll follow your useful suggestions. But the "Boxer Rebellion" article -- which you call the "Boxer movement" -- is a mess and getting worse every day. The formerly good parts of it have been corrupted by ideologues. Smallchief 20:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
      • If that's the case, then you might want to cite from another source or simply pull the detailed discussion of the Boxers.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

This is a very interesting article and very close to B class in my opinion. Aside from the points noted by Anotherclown and Intothatdarkness, I have the following suggestions. These are mainly just nitpicking style comments and aren't really major, but if you are keen to take the article to GA and beyond they will eventually become important:

• the sub headings should only be fully capitalised if they are proper nouns per Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Section headings. Thus "Chinese Attacks and Resolve" should be "Chinese attacks and resolve";
• Alt text could be added to the images. This allows sight impaired people to hear a description of the image with appropriate software;
• there is some inconsistency in use of endashs and emdashes, for instance in the first paragraph of the Rescue section, endashes and emdashes are used interchangably. Either is fine, but consistency is the key;
• there is some inconsistency in the presentation style in the Notes, for example "Fleming, p. 118" and "Fleming, 203". Either style is fine under Wikipedia's Manual of Style, but consistency is the key;
• in the Notes section, the page ranges should have endashes per WP:DASH, e.g "Thompson, p 7-8" should be "Thompson pp. 7–8";
• the bare url chain (Note # 27) could be hidden using a template such as {{cite web}} per WP:LINKROT. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Smallchief

I thank all three of you for your suggestions. I intended to rework the article with those suggestions as a guideline. But, unfortunately, I see that the material from the article deleted by Anotherclown has been re-added verbatim by the original contribtor. I wouldn't call the added material vandalism, but rather a misleading use of sources to press a particular POV -- which in this case is an exaggeration of the military prowess of General Dong and his "Kansu Braves." The same bias by the same contributor has impacted adversely other articles on the Boxer Rebellion. I don't see much benefit in putting more work into the article if it's going to be mangled at every turn. What's the opinion of more experienced wiki-heads in situations like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallchief (talk • contribs) 11:06, 13 November 2010

The best approach is always to try to talk to the editor involved, although this is not always successful. If you haven't already done so, leaving note on the editor's talk page discussing your concerns might be a way to engage the editor in question and start a collaboration. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ivan Vladislav of Bulgaria

I have expanded the article, User:Cplakidas kindly corrected some grammatical, punctuational and semantic mistakes and I wonder if there is a chance to submit it for a GA. I would welcome and address (if I can) all suggestions for further improvement. Thank you. --Gligan (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

I can't really comment on the content, sorry (seems okay to me, though), but I have the following nitpicky style suggestions (feel free to ignore if you wish):

• I think that there are a couple of sentences that need citations:
  • in the Life before section, "His life during the subsequent decades and until his accession is unknown."
    • Well, I could not find a citation literary saying that. Since there is no information on that, the historians usually begin with how Ivan Vladislav was saved young and then continue with his seizure of the throne. Therefore it is obvious that there is no information on his life during that period.
      • No worries, that seems fine. In order not to have this count against the article in a higher assessment, though, I suggest adding a note beside that sentence explaining this. AustralianRupert (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Assumption of power subsection, "Ivan Vladislav then seized the Bulgarian throne and took steps to ensure his position against potential rivals."
    • Done.
  • in the Legacy section, "Ivan Vladislav Point on Rugged Island in the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica is named after Ivan Vladislav of Bulgaria."
    • Done (in fact what I added is the link the article of Ivan Vladislav Point with a map of the Island of Livingstone and the surrounding isles where most of the Bulgarian-named Antarctic geographic features are).
• page ranges in the Notes section should have endashes instead of hyphens per WP:DASH;
  • Done.
• Citation # 23 "Wasilewski, T. (in Polish). History of Bulgaria. pp. 290." is inconsistently formatted - as it is a single page it should be "p." in stead of "pp.";
  • Done.
• "Kazhdan (1991)" seems inconsistent with the other citations that don't include the year. They should all be the same format, I think;
  • Done.
• there is a "Who?" tag in the Legacy section that should be dealt with and removed before taking the article to higher review;
  • The Byzantine historian is not mentioned in the book and I have talked with Constantine on that. I have put a note instead of the who tag which explains that.
• in the Assumption of power subsection and the Legacy section you have spaced emdashs, but per WP:DASH emdashes should not be spaced (endashes can be, though);
  • I don't understand what you mean here. User:TodorBozhinov has done those dashes but I don't know how you suggest to substitute them... Can you do it yourself?
    • No worries, I've fixed this for you. It is a very very minor Manual of Style point, so don't worry too much. AustralianRupert (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• in the References section, in the titles of the Gyuzelev and Zlatarski works there is an emdash used in the year ranges, however, per WP:DASH it should be an endash;
  • Done.
• in the References section, the titles should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles, e.g. ""Part II. From the Slavinization of the country to the fall of the First Empire (852—1018). VI. Struggle for independence" should be ""Part II. From the Slavinization of the Country to the Fall of the First Empire (852–1018). VI. Struggle for Independence". AustralianRupert (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Done.
    • I am sorry for my delay to address your recommendations. I would like to thank you for the review and will answer above the separate points you have noted. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
      • No worries at all, it looks good. Keep up the good work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Thank you very much for the kind words, although most credits should be given to the users Ałiku who wrote the article in the Polish Wikipedia and Cplakidas who corrected my mistakes. Best, --Gligan (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Douglas XP-48

I believe this article makes use of all the possible sources on this remakably obscure project, and I'm curious if I should bother submitting it for Good Article. Or, alternatively, what should be improved to get it there. Thanks! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

• Well, completely dead end articles have passed GA a lot. I don't really agree, but enough people will pass it so people will try their luck. Especially with pointscoring competitions, there are floods of 2k prose GAs being intensively farmed
• One another note, Baugher is self-published. Why is that reliable? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The Baugher reliability thing has been batted about for awhile in WP:AIR discussions. The consensus seems to be that he should be considered reliable as a published expert, but I've revised the article to do without those citations. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hchc2009

• "Inspiration" section:

• Might be worth explaining why the idea of a very light fighter aircraft was attractive at the time. (NB: I don't know!). Not sure why Model 312 is in bold.

• "Design and cancellation" section:

• "a wing of remarkably high aspect ratio" - there's a link, but given the article's pretty short, might be worth explaining in the text what "aspect ratio" means.
• "However, this very aspect of its design was regarded by suspicion by the Army Air Corps" - I'd avoid starting with an "however". Is the design aspect the speed of the aircraft? I couldn't quite understand why a fast aircraft would be regarded as suspicious. Or is the aspect the engine?
• "would never prove truly reliable" - could go for "never proved reliable".

• "Comparable aircraft" section:

• If sources allow it, this might work well by being integrated into the textual narrative. e.g. "similar models, such as the x, y or z..."

Hchc2009 (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get on these. Also, to answer your question, what was considered suspicious was that Douglas' performance claims for the aircraft were, by the Army's calcuations, physically impossible. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo

• Comments relating to A1:
  • "USAF Museum fact sheet" is not a clearly understandable contraction of ""Douglas XP-48". National Museum of the United States Air Force."
  • "American Aviation Historical Society Journal" is unintelligible to me. Was the article authored, is the title of the Journal Journal if so use the publisher field or manually Journal (American Aviation Historical Society).
  • Publication locations for all (Harleyford Publications).
  • Page references: Francillon 1979 ; American Aviation Historical Society Journal, Volume 28, Number 2. Summer 1983.?

Much thanks. As for the Journal, I'm going to have to try and get this through interlibrary loan; the snippet view on Google Books shows the info cited, but I can't figure out what the article title/author was. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking good! Good luck with the ILL process. You could ask at the Resource Exchange Page on Wikipedia if anyone with better/different access could get a hold of the citation information / full copy for research purposes. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ian Rose

• It's a nice little article, decently written, structured, cited and complete with supporting material. A bit too little IMO for GA though -- I know the class is designed for smaller-than-FA work but this pushes it for me. I realise there may not be a hell of a lot more to say on a failed project but if it was mine I'd be quite satisfied with B-Class for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I might be able to squeeze in a bit more, but I'll be quite happy with B. Thanks for the input! :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 03:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sidney Mashbir

I'm a new editor to wikipedia, I have read through many guides on wikipedia but I wanted to know if my edits are on track and ways I can improve this article. I have a lot of resources and information regarding Sidney Mashbir but I am not quite sure how much should be put into the article. I believe Sidney Mashbir was an important figure, along with the Allied Translator and Interpreter Section (which I plan to write shortly) in US/Japan World War II history and I would really like to improve this article to B-Class or GA Status. I informally asked User:AustralianRupert earlier today to give it a look, who rated it as Start-class. I am looking for further peer review on the article, anyone with knowledge of US WWII Military Intelligence in the Pacific would be greatly helpful! Thanks -- Aeonx (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

I found a lot of hits on googlebooks, some that are in preview mode about him. Why are more of those not used? Much of the article is based on veterans sites, personal websites etc YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't fully investigated all of the entries that appear on a search related to Mashbir on googlebooks at this point, although I am aware there is A LOT more information that could be added to the article and I am sure there are several notable feats Mashbir made during his early career and during WWII that are not yet covered. At the moment, I feel most of the article is based on his autobiography (as reviewed by James P. Finley, the Command Historian for the U.S. Army Intelligence Center and Fort Huachuca and Director of both the Fort Huachuca Museum and the Military Intelligence Historical Holding). The fact it was reviewed by James P. Finley (who seems to be a very good military historian from my initial investigation) is the reason why I decided to focus primarily on this source and I have referenced it dozens of times in the article.

Additionally I've used Secret Missions: The Story of an Intelligence Officer By Ellis M. Zacharias to collaborate on the article somewhat. Both biographies are listed in Further reading and are heavily cited in the citation I made in James P. Finley's 'Sidney Mashbir and Some Lessions in Joint Intelligence'. Perhaps I should cite the original source directly? I may be able do this soon, as I am expected to obtain a copy of Mashbir's Biography from my national library achieves in the coming weeks. -- Aeonx (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

• For a successful B class rating, all paragraphs need to be cited, as such I feel that citations should be added to the following sentences:

• "In late 1916, Mashbir applied for a commission in the Regular Army and was accepted with General Funston's support despite the Army’s policy that married men not be accepted. After attending the Army Service Schools at Fort Leavenworth, he joined the 22nd Infantry Regiment, which was stationed at Governors Island, New York, but was soon detailed for counter-espionage duty and recommended to join the Counter Intelligence service that was being formed";

Fixed. I feel I can probably improve the references in general some more I'll work on that further in the next few days/week. -- Aeonx (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Sidney Mashbir died on 13 June 1973 and was laid to rest at Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery, Point Loma, San Diego County, California";

Fixed. -- Aeonx (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any information about his early life that could be added to the main body of the article (in an Early life section, perhaps). E.g. date and place of birth, parents names, occupations, siblings, schooling, etc? These are not essential, but many higher rated biograqphies have at least some of these details. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added some information about his family history and education in an Early life section as suggested. Mashbir did have a son, Don Stuart Mashbir(1931-2008) with his second wife, not sure if that is relevant though. I could not find any records of siblings. -- Aeonx (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Cuprum17

• A minor point; the section on World War II uses the term Attack on Pearl Harbour which is not American English spelling of the location Pearl Harbor but rather, UK English spelling. I suggest a change to agree with the American usage, since that is where it is located.

I'm Australian, so its also the spelling we use. I agree with the change though. -- Aeonx (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• In the subsection titled 'Early service' the sentence "He enrolled in the Military Intelligence Reserve G-2 and become a Lieutenant Colonel.", with the words 'Military Intelligence Reserve' red-linked. Later in the article the term Military Intelligence Division G2 Reserve is used. Are these the same intelligence units or services under a different name? If they are the same then it should be changed for consistency and to eliminate the red-link.

It is indeed the same intelligence unit, I have fixed the redlink. -- Aeonx (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps it should be noted somewhere in the article that although he served as a Lieutenant Colonel (temporary rank) during World War I that after the war he was reduced in rank to Captain, his permanent rank at the time. This was common practice and not a reduction as a result of disciplinary action. A sentence about this might help the reader understand the situation better. Cuprum17 (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I've seen this presented well in another article (see: Service summary of Douglas_MacArthur#Dates of rank, I may try to follow something similar. Not sure. I will evaluate based on the information available. -- Aeonx (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ian Rose

Hi there, we've already come into contact re. this article as I did a light copyedit before giving it a B-Class rating (made possible by your improvements following comments made above). Just to clarify some of the points from that copyedit so as to avoid similar things in future:

• Make sure your date style is consistent throughout the article. Although the general US date format is month day, year the US military uses Commonwealth format, i.e. day month year. This means that you can reasonably use either format in an article on a US military person, the main thing is to keep it consistent within the article. In this case, you were predominently using day month year, so I changed non-conforming dates to that format when I edited. In the case of Ellis M. Zacharias, you predominently used month day, year, so I changed a few Commonwealth-style dates to that format. Best choose one and stick to it in all your US military articles (Hawkeye, who edits a lot of US military articles, uses Commonwealth format all the time, so that might be a guide).
• Always spell out states like California, rather than using abbreviations that might not mean much to a non-native.
• Take care not to use overly formal or euphemistic language, even though this might be present in sources, e.g. use "buried" or "interred" rather than "laid to rest" -- that sort of thing.
• Remember that section and subsection headings are always sentence case except where they employ a proper term.
• Date ranges take endashes, not hyphens. Where it's just year–year, don't use spaces around the dash; where it's a full date, use spaces.

I look forward to seeing more of your work -- welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

USS Chesapeake (1799)

This article has been the bane of my existence for a couple of years now. About a year ago it made A-class but since then it's been almost entirely reworked because I kept discovering more sources and more discrepancies to work through. This ship has one of the most confusing and contradicting collection of sources and heavy explanations have been necessary to make everything clear. I don't feel this article will make it through FAC in its present condition so I'm looking for input about things I may have missed. The essential facts are all in the article now but I'm concerned about how they present themselves to the uninvolved reader. Thanks. Brad (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

XavierGreen

The one area that i see a bit lacking is the Quasi-War section, though i understand that her service in this conflict was quite uneventful i was able to glean a bit more information about it through a quick google book search. For example in regards to the action with La Jeune Creole Emmons here [[1]] lists the action occuring off Barbuda and that the Frenchman was manned by 45 men. Spencer Tucker's Injured honor: the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair, June 22, 1807 mentions that she carried 16 guns. I don't know if these details could be worked into the section or not, but if they can be it would give it a little more length.XavierGreen (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the looking but I really don't see much value in adding information about a capture that was uneventful. USS President had even less Quasi-War experience to the point where I combined it with her First Barbary War service. Brad (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Sturmvogel 66

Comments

• I found this paragraph confusing because you didn't initially specify that the 28 guns were the main battery and then added in all the other guns. Also you're not consistent about spelling out numbers. Regardless what the MOS may say I find spelling out the number when it's adjacent to a size is easier to understand than 18 44-pounder, forex. Yet, gun ratings did not correspond to the actual number of guns a ship would carry. Chesapeake was noted as carrying forty guns during her encounter with HMS Leopard and fifty guns during her engagement with HMS Shannon in 1813. The fifty guns consisted of 28 x 18-pounder (8 kg) long cannon on the gun deck, 14 on each side. This main battery was complemented by two long 12-pounders, (5.5 kg) one long 18-pounder, eighteen 32-pounder (14.5 kg) carronades, and one 12-pound carronade on the spar deck. Her broadside weight was 542 pounds (246 kg).
  • WP:ORDINAL actually does say to avoid "18 44-pounder". - Dank (push to talk) 05:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• It's always worthwhile to give gun counts for enemy ships, IMO.
• Do you have any information on why Chesapeake's masts were feared for off Tripoli?
• Together who? Some sailors from Constitution joined Chesapeake and together they filled the crew with sailors of several nations.
• How can two full broadsides from Shannon, how many guns?, equal 362 shots?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • That whole section probably needs to be looked at again.
• Can you specify which are the chase guns? Or did that change with regularity too?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Kirk

Comments

• I appreviated perpendiculars as lpp based on the USS Congress (1799) article.
• That article has a note which has a quote you should incorporate: "The US Navy officially carried only three rates of frigate during the period 1794–1826: 44-gun, 36-gun, and 32-gun. The rating was independent of the size of the ship or the weight of its armament, but important in terms of crew size, pay, and money spent to support the ship".
• The Chesapeake vs. Shannon action was depicted in fiction in the Patrick O'Brian novel The Fortune of War - worth a mention.
• Constellation wasn't a principle of the constitution either - the flag dates from 1777. after a principle of the United States Constitution.
• From my searching for images for USS Congress, I recall a lot more pictures of the Chesapeake in the National Archives if you wanted to add some more images to the article.
• The first sentence of the lead should be more similar to the USS Congress article. USS Chesapeake was a 38-gun sailing frigate of the United States Navy and one of the original six frigates authorized for construction by the Naval Act of 1794. vs. USS Congress was a nominally rated 38-gun wooden-hulled, three-masted heavy frigate of the United States Navy. Basically, put the second phrase in a new sentence, and put 'wooden-hulled, three-masted heavy frigate' in place of frigate.

Overall, the article looks for FAC to me, but what do I know! Kirk (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Black Army of Hungary

I'm listing the article since it has been improved (or maybe just expanded it depends on you) a lot during the past weeks. It also drew the attention of various users, which resulted in national point of view versus neutral POV issues. Though half of the references incorporate English texts, the rest of them is in Hungarian, thus it would be nice if editors familiar with the language also joined the work or expressed their thoughts. Any help is appreciated and I like to get more and constant attention from you, since the article had been tagged already when I started editing it.Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 12:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo

There's a lot of work on citations before this is ready for MILHIST A class

• fn1 Tanner, Marcus (2009-03-18). 404s.
• fn2 appeard to have been authored by (R. N. B.)
• fn3 TITLE IN ALL CAPS
• Hungarian names in footnotes: Are you using Western or Hungarian Name Order?
• fn4 Hunyadi Öcs. MK. (1996-1999). miscited, see the title page; what makes Rakoczi Foundation Heritage Series a reliable publisher.
• fn5 Out of style (Kartográfiai Vállalat (Budapest, Hungary). )
• For style: (in Italian) Redaelli, Alberto (1979)
• Capitalisation: Wargames research Group
• fn15 location of (in Hungarian), missing space in Budapest,Hungary
• Iliescu, Octavian (2002). TITLE IN CAPS
• Formatting for a dateless work: Beham, Markus Peter ().
• Fenyvesi, László (1990). location of (in Hungarian).
• Generally translations of the article title would be nice for non-English titled works
• Tóth Zoltán (1925) and Tóth Zoltán (1925) duplicated citation;
• Tóth Zoltán (1925); What makes a work from this era dependable in terms of scholarship when it is dealing with national mythos?
• Lynn White, jr. (1973). is almost certainly miscited, and that almost certainly isn't its real title
• Kukorelly, Endre (2008). King M. (novel). Novels are not reliable for historical fact.
• Citation name orders are all over the joint
• Neal Bedford; Janine Eberle (2007). Lonely Planet Vienna. is not reliable for medieval history
• Kelényi, György; Farbaky Péter,Széphelyi F. György (2006). Commas or semicolons?
• Dr. Thallóczy Lajos (1915) . Remove the title
• Are you citing the entire kronológiája, or an alphabetically or chronologically ordered article from within it? If you're citing a separate entry in a Tertiary Source, you may as well indicate the entry, and the individual entry author if the entry is signed by the author. Benda, Kálmán (editor) (1981) (in Hungarian). Magyarország történeti kronológiája I /A kezdetektől 1526-ig/. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. p. 276. ISBN 963 05 2661 1. ; for an example, see Bartl, Július; Dusan Skvarna (2002). of how to cite an individual entry.
• Date out of style, TITLE IN CAPS "CROATIA". England: Foundation for Medieval Genealogy. 02009-02-12February 12, 2009. http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/CROATIA.htm.
• Using a primary source (Antonio Bonfini (1995) [1568]) for facts is Original Research
• Using a primary source (Thuróczy János (2001) [1488]) for facts is Original Research
• Date required: Jan Długosz (in Latin). Historiae Polonicae liber XIII.et ultimus.
• Caps in title, possible primary source (source reprint possible): Heltai, Gáspár (1981).
• Caps in title, Tibor Szabó (2010-09-11).
• Date out of style, what makes the Mayor (or any number of this minor government non-academic offices) reliable sources for the purposes of medieval history? "Vár története" (in Hungarian). Vadna, Hungary: Mayor's office of Vadna. 02008 2008. http://www.vadna.hu/main.php?pg=12&c=39.

• The colour of the battle sequences are unreadable, some of the images are almost certainly copyvios OR original research. The Table of Contents is over spaced. It doesn't appear as though the article relied upon a scholarly work for its structure or general discourse, but picked the eyes out of internet available sources. I share a worry about nationalist popular sources being used. OTOH, I'm fairly happy with the quality of academic work in Hungarian social sciences post 1963, and unworried with scholarly works in Hungarian from after that date. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the process and howabouts to place comments to a peer review, so I only note here that I replied in Talk:Black Army of Hungary/to do. Sorry if it's unofficial.Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 21:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiCopter

• The link Soimos is a dab. DONE

Sorry, I would give more comments, but I'm getting tired. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 04:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope you get back soon after having a rest :) Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 14:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I'm back to comment. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 23:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• The lead looks awkward. For one thing, you could add |left to the image syntax. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 23:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• The article needs a lot of refs.
• In the section 'Battles and respective captains of the Black Army', the table header 'Captains in charge' sounds kind of informal. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 23:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• In notes, Zemplen, Saros and Kassa are dabs. That's all I have for now. I'm getting itchy to get back to the South Dakota battleships. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 23:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

3rd Division (Australia)

I am requesting that this article be peer reviewed as I would like to see what it might require to take it up to GA status. Also, I freely admit to writing this one quickly, so I feel it needs a few pairs of eyes to find typos and grammatical errors (for which I humbly apologise in advance). Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Farawayman

I have restricted my comments to the WWI part only. Some observations:

• Possibly add: 24 / 25 March 1918 - Division was moved from R&R first to Doullens under command of X Corps and then later placed under Congreve's VII Corps command at Amiens.
  • I've found mention of VII Corps but not X Corps in my source, so I will try to find it elsewhere, cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• Consider: 30 March: 11 Bde: ".....Australian commander estimating German losses to be in the "thousands" - Monash says 3,000.
  • Thanks, what are the details of Monash's book - I will try to see if I can get it from the library? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Monash, John Lt-Gen, Sir (1993) [1st. pub. 1920: Hutchinson & Co, London]. The Australian Victories in France in 1918. Imperial War Museum in association with Battery Press. ISBN 9780901627964.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
      • Thanks, I'll see if I can get hold of it. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• Consider: 28 March: 3 Div lost 9th Bde to 61st Div and on 29th March received 15th Bde to replace the 9th Bde.
• Possibly add sub-heading for 8 August actions: "Battle of Amiens," as this and Passchendaele Ridge can be considered to be the most important actions the Division was involved in WWI. Adding further sub-headings in the WWI section based on specific known actions or places could make the long section more readable.
  • Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• Consider: 8 August: "...the attack was very successful and the division achieved all of its objectives." They apparently reached their first phase objectives by 7am! (Zero-Hour was 04:20)
• Consider: ".... Throughout the rest of August, they continued offensive operations.." I think the 3rd Div were relieved on 13 Aug by 17th Div and went into Corps Reserve. It appears that they were only brought forward again on about 20 or 21 August.
  • My source doesn't mention this, so I will need to see if I can find it somewhere else. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• Consider: Action at "St Quentin Canal" - possibly mention that it was the US 27th Div that "messed up"
  • Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• After the St Quentin Canal action, Monash says "....it was impossible to call on the 3rd and 5th Div's for any further effort... their work had been most exhausting ... after 60 days of continuous battle... reduced fighting strength... that a very drastic re-organisation had become necessary. This could only be effected by a complete withdrawal from the fighting zone." So I think we can deduce that their WWI commitment ended on 2 Oct 1918.
  • The source I have says that elements of division's artillery were involved in further actions after 2 October 1918 in support of the Americans. They fired their last shot of the war on 4 November 1918. I will try to clarify this. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• Try adding a second definitive source for the WWI section, only relying on Palazzo could be perceived as not giving a balanced view. Interesting history of a solid WWI formation; and well written! Farawayman (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's a fair call. Will have to work on it. Over the holidays I hope to spend a bit of time at the State Library, and with luck might be able to find a few more relevant sources. Unfortunately the SLQ don't allow anyone to borrow the books, which makes life harder. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments, they are all good suggestions. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

• Fixed the refs fmts
  • Thanks, apologies for that. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• For the locns do you think Melbourne etc, need Victoria after them for consistency?
  • Added them in. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• In the list of commanders, I don't think Sir should be listed for Wooden and the one after him as they were apparently knighted after they moved on, and Wooden's article claims he was knighted for non-military stuff as well YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I've tweaked the list just to display the titles as per how they are displayed in the source. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments and edits. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ian Rose

Only given the article a cursory read but I can make the following comments:

• The overall length/detail seems sufficient to me not simply for GAN but also for ACR.
• The length of the main body however seems to dictate a bigger lead -- at least two, perhaps three paragraphs in total.
  • Thanks, I will try to expand a bit by providing some more specific information about battles, etc. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• Related to Farawayman's point, why not make use of the Official History of Australia in the Great War? By the same token, the Second World War Official History probably also deserves a look-in.
  • Yes, that's a fair point. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• Minor: you don't need to link the same rank for every CO in the list -- the first instance of each is plenty.
  • Fixed. Apologies for this, I forgot to remove those when I overwrote the article. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• If I get the chance I'll have a closer look and perhaps copyedit but hopefully the above will be useful for the moment. Good effort as usual...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments, Ian. I hope you will take a crack at the copy edit, as it probably needs it. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

As usual for your work AR, this article is now of the highest quality. My comments and suggestions are:

• It seems a bit confusing to say that the division existed between 1916 and 1991 in the second sentence given that the rest of lead discusses it being disbanded on three occasions.
  • I've tweaked the wording a little, do you think it reads more clearly now?
• The chronology in the first para of the 'Formation and training' section is a bit unclear - it implies that the decision to form a '3rd Division' was made after the decision to raise units designated the '4th' and '5th' divisions - is this correct?
  • Yes, this does (confusingly) seem to be the case from my reading. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• It might be worth providing some brief background on Monash the first time he's mentioned
• In the second para of the 'Battle of Amiens, 1918' section it should be noted that battalions of other divisions were also disbanded. It might be worth noting (if you can find a source that says this!) that reducing the Australian brigades to three battalions would bring them in line with the British divisions they were serving alongside and that many of the battalions were grossly under-strength and battalions only in name anyway.
  • Yes, that's a good suggestion. I know I've read this somewhere. I will have to go back through my books and see if I can find a ref for it somewhere. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• The article seems a bit unduly focused on the division's infantry component - there's little coverage of it's artillery for instance. David Horner's book The Gunners may have useful material on this topic if you can find a copy (if not please let me know - I should be able to borrow it from a local library)
  • Yes, that's a fair call. Probably reflects the sourcing, which is rather inf-centric, but I think I can get access to Horner's book. Might see if I can find more on the engineers too. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• It might be worth noting that the other CMF division (the 2nd) was disbanded during the Pentropic experiment but later re-raised (though I'm not sure when) Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, Palazzo 2001 probably has this, or Kuring 2004 might. A mate has these, so I will see if I can dig something out of them on the weekend. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Nick, these excellent comments/suggestions. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

HMS Avenger (D14)

Any help or suggestions on how to improve this article appreciated. I have reviewed some ship articles but this is my first real effort. Hopefully going for GA - A class etc. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Hi, Jim, just a couple of style comments from me:

• in the Convoy PQ 18 section there is a bit of whitespace on my screen (but it might just be me);
• I think the MOS prefers numbers greater than nine to use numerals rather than words, for instance "60" instead of "sixty";
• I think that the U-boat names are meant to be in italics like the ship names, for instance U-155 should be U-155;
• I think "U-Boat" should be presented as "U-boat" (difference in capitalisation) - U-Boat redirects to U-boat. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

All done thanks for the review. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hchc2009

Couple of quick thoughts:

• Intro: "Avenger carried a maximum of fifteen aircraft..." This could be read as meaning she could carry up to 15, or that she happened to carry up to fifteen, but could have carried more.

Clarified

• "deck landing training" - is there anything this could link to, in case the reader's not familiar with the term?

Linked flight deck whicj was all I could locate

• "Who was unable to help..." I think this was supposed to link to the previous sentence with a comma.

reworded

• "When Avenger arrived in Britain the Fleet Air Arm was going through a shortage of Martlet fighter aircraft..." Read a little oddly. "the Fleet Air Arm had a shortage..."?

reworded

• "under command of an ex-Swordfish pilot Commander A.P. Colthust" - I'd have expected either "under the command of the ex-Swordfish pilot...", or perhaps "an ex-Swordfish pilot,(comma) Commander..." but I'm not certain I'm right!

changed

• "The weather conditions were cold..." Could this just be "The weather was cold..."?

changed

• " Icing prevented any flying on 18 September..." I'm assuming this was icing on the planes (as opposed to the ship) but might be worth clarifying.

It was the flight deck reworded

• " The Swordfish could not take off from an escort carrier deck armed with torpedoes or enough depth charges and fuel to be useful..." Just to check - did this mean that a Swordfish could not take off with a torpedo, or that it couldn't take off with a torpedo and enough fuel to be useful?

It was the short flight deck that prevented them being fully armed of fuelled reworded

• "Once off North Africa she would join the covering force for the landings, with HMS Argus, three cruisers and five destroyers. The Supermarine Seafires off Argus, and Avengers Sea Hurricanes, would provide air cover for the landings." Because the paragraph doesn't say when Op TORCH occurred, the conditional tense here doesn't make it clear if this actually happened or not - the next sentence tells us she flew air missions for two days, but not if she ever got to provide air cover for the landings, etc. Might be worth clarifying this bit a little.

Changed

Enjoyed the article, and thought the pictures added a lot to it. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is a very interesting article on a historically important ship. My comments are:

• Was Avenger the RN's first escort carrier? If so, some background on the process which led to the decision to build her would be interesting and relevant

She was only the first built in the US

• Where was the Sun Shipbuilding and Drydock Company located? The article implies that it was in the US, but this isn't made clear

More added

• Did the 555 man complement include her air group? (eg, the pilots and personnel who maintained the aircraft)

Bothe combined clarified in text

• Did the ship's crew join her (and then commission the carrier) in the US?

Not sure on this one will recheck but dont think its mentioned in teh sources

• "the escorts provided for convoy PQ 18, was at the time the strongest force gathered" is a bit awkward

reworded

• There are a number of instances where a possessive apostrophe is missing from Avengers (eg, "One near miss started a small fire in Avengers catapult room")

Think I got them all

• Both the external links are now dead Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed

Thanks for the review. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

JonCatalán

Lead

• "Avenger had the capacity for a maximum of 15 aircraft and successfully took part in the largest Russian convoy (PQ 18) up until that time." → The two factoids should probably be divided into two separate sentences, as they don't have much to do with each other. Also, up until what time? e.g. "Avenger's capacity allowed for a maximum of 15 aircraft. In (insert date here), she took part in what was the largest Russian convoy to date."
• "On her return home a number of faults and recommendations for future escort carriers was submitted by her captain." → What about, "Upon her return home, resulting from a number of design faults, Avenger's captain drew up recommendations for a future escort carrier"?
• "She then took part in Operation Torch..." → It would probably be better to write this as, "In (insert date here), she took part in Operation Torch..."
• "Originally named the Rio-Hudson, she was laid down on 28 November 1939, launched on 27 November 1940, and delivered on 31 July 1941." → Is this in reference to the ship as a merchant ship, or as an escort carrier?
• The lead could probably gain by going into a little more depth.

Hope this helps, for now. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Bentonville

I'm looking for was to improve this article to at least GA or A-class status. Wild Wolf (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

A couple of style/technical points from me:

• in the Background section, the last sentence of the last paragraph needs a citation: "The Confederate attack commenced on March 19, as Slocum's men marched on the Goldsboro Road, one mile (1.6 km) south of Bentonville";
• in the Aftermath section, the last sentence of the first paragraph requires a citation: "The Confederate army had failed in its last chance to achieve a decisive victory over the Union army in North Carolina";
• in the Notes section the page ranges should have endashes per WP:DASH;
• in the Notes section (Citation # 27) should have publisher and accessdate information added to it;
• in the References section you have two websites, but unless they were specifically cited, I think they should be in the External links section;
• you might consider adding alt text to the images;
• I suggest wikilinking terms like "division" (once in the lead, and once in the body) so that readers can click on them and gain an understanding of what they mean if they don't already know. Good work so far. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

• Locns in the books should be spelt out, not CA, GA without explanation. Also Chapel Hill needs NC YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo

• Lede sentence requires "fought during" "fought over". "Johnston managed to concentrate in North Carolina" confused list, use semicolons to indicate the breaks between the phrases in the complex list. Concentration needs to be wikilinked to the military concept of concentration of force. fn27 needs a full citation. As will National Park Service battle description. "Luvaas, Jay. "Johnston's Last Stand — Bentonville."" mdash used incorrectly?
• The battle narrative is difficult prose. This is because it is essentially technical writing. You try to break it up by mentioning, for example, the death of notable individuals, but it is a hard thing to write shining battle prose. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

6th Armoured Division (South Africa)

I have taken this article from what was essentially a stub to a more sizeable document. I think it now covers the Division's actions, problems and key dates. Peer review inputs by 1944-1945 Italian Campaign specialists would be much appreciated. There are very few SA Military articles in A-Class status and I think this one can progress in that direction (currently Start Class). Farawayman (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Buckhot06

This is a really good piece, detailed and with orbats at various times. Two thoughts;

• cut down on the number of subheadings, as it makes the contents very long, Corrected, but I did not reduce sub-headings, but forced the Table of Contents to report to Level 2 only. Farawayman (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• double-check the Category:Infantry regiments of South Africa. I believe we have an article on the Cape Town Highlanders, for example. Corrected - I have added links to all battalions within the OOB.
• I didn't check whether you've done an academic library/professional military history search of the literature on the South African in Italy for further reading/eventual expansion by anyone, but that might be an idea if not done already. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies Farawayman; extremely good sourcehunting.

YellowMonkey

• A lot of abbreviations are just thrown in without being spelt out first. Corrected (Hope I spotted all of them!). Farawayman (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Number ranges in the references need date ranges hyphens, silly me Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC) `

-> YellowMonkey, I didn't understand this one! Please give some more guidance on what is required. Thanks! Farawayman (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Farawayman (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Notes and References" and other headers; --> "Notes and references" due to not being a proper noun Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

I found this a very interesting article and most of my comments are just minor style points that might help for an ACR (many of them are nitpicks, but hopefully they will help):

• prior to going for an A class review or a GAN I'd suggest having someone take a look through the article and give it a copy edit. I didn't find anything glaring, but it can't hurt; Agree. Requested User: Stephen Kirrage to do a copy edit. Refer his comments below. Farawayman (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• if you are going to use abbreviations, you need to introduce them first; Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• in the Crossing the Albert Line section, "...By the 28th June" (you are using an ordinal suffix for the date, however, this should not be done per Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Dates, thus it should just be "By 28 June..." Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• date/year ranges should have endashes per WP:DASH, e.g. "1 February 1943 - 2 May 1945" should be "1 February 1943 – 2 May 1945"; Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• I think that the lead needs to be expanded a bit for GA or A class; Done. Farawayman (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• the table in the Command and Organisation section appears to have a duplicate title "Higher formations served under" - is this necessary? Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• "1st US Division's Combat command 'A'" - is this the proper name of a unit? If so, it should be fully capitalised as "1st US Division's Combat Command 'A'"; Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• some paragraphs end with sentences that are not cited, for instance the last paragraph in the Spring Offensive section: "The Division now advanced towards the Po River Valley." These should have citations added so that it can fulfill the referencing criterion; Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• use of the word "now" I think creates a tense issue. It is in the past so I think that usually using "then" is clearer, e.g. in this sentence: "The Division now advanced towards the Po River Valley." - it might be clearer if it were worded "The Division then advanced towards the Po River Valley." Corrected, thanks largely to copy edit by Stephen Kirrage. Farawayman (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• watch the capitalisation of some of your headings, if they are not proper nouns only the first word should be capitalised, e.g. "Italian Surrender" should be "Italian surrender"; Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• the Advisor script reports a possible ISBN error for the Orpen work in the Bibliography. Can you check to see that this is the correct number, please? -> The ISBN 036000282X is correct, as printed in my copy of the book. It can also be cross-referenced here Farawayman (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• per the example included at WP:LAYOUT I think that the See also section should be above the Notes section. Corrected.Farawayman (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Citation # 29 to the 28th (Maori) Battalion website would be better formated with the {{cite web}} template so that the inline citation links directly to the website as per the way you formatted Citation # 70; Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Citation # 52 ("This day in the war in Europe") should have publisher and access date information added to it; This citation was not on par with the others in the article - I have replaced it with a reputable reference. See Citation #52. Farawayman (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• the titles in the Bibliography should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles; Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• you might want to add an OCLC number for the Klein 1946 work (sometimes comes up at ACR) - this is in lieu of an ISBN - these can be found by searching World cat; Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• is there an ISBN for the Beyers work? Added. Farawayman (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Kirrages

You asked me to do a read through for copy edit and I'll be happy to do that.If anything comes up that needs clarification I'll add it below as I go:

Thanks for all you have done so far. BZ! Farawayman (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Good Copy Edit - thanks! Farawayman (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

1. "Training began in a desert camp close to Khataba". It would help to explain where this is. Is it the one in Afghanistan? I believe III Corps was part of Persia and Iraq Command at the time....Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 13:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Khataba (also known as El Khataba) 70 km NW of Cairo. See Khataba (scroll down for map). I have clarified the text to prevent confusion with other Khataba's. Farawayman (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

2.Mention of 11th Canadian Infantry Brigade near Isernia. As far as I'm aware only Brigade #s 1-3 were in Italy (+an armoured brigade). Could you check your source please? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 13:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC) I checked the original reference - it refers to 11th Inf Bde (Can). I also checked Jackson Vol VI Part II p. 225. 11th Inf Bde is listed in the 8th Army OOB as being part of I Canadian Corps at the time of the Gothic Line battles. So I think its correct. Jackson also makes frequent reference to the Perth Regiment and the Cape Breton Highlanders, who were both 11th Inf Bde battalions. Farawayman (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I had got my timeline wrong. By this time the Can. 5th Armd Div were on the scene and 1th Inf Bde were part of it. Soree! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 18:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

3."By 25 October, the rains had turned to floods, isolating the Division's elements on Hill 501 and suspending all air support from the US 12th Air Force." US 12th Air Force ceased to exist as an operational entity when Mediterranean Allied Air Command was formed in 1943 (see here). Jackson says (p. 235 note at bottom of the page) that US XXII Tactical Air Command was responsible for supporting 5th Army by this time. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 18:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, you are 100% correct. The cited page does not make reference to which air force it was. I typed 12th USAF as an assumption! Jackson reference is clear. Corrected to US XXII Tac Air Cmd.Farawayman (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

4.Since the brigade commanders are named in the OOB, may I suggest that the Divisional artillery commander also be named (since he would also have been a brigadier). Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 18:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC) One hour of research later, and its been corrected :) He was a Col! Farawayman (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. CRA in a British Division would have been a brigadier so I thought that for logical parity all brigadiers should be named. Still, since you've made the effort to find him, he might as well stay in the table even if as a colonel. Actually during WWII I have yet to find a British officer who held the substantive rank of brigadier. As far as I can see, it was always a temporary rank held by an officer of lower substantive rank appointed to a brigadier's job (Brigade cmdr, CRA, BGS etc.). It now raises the question as to whether one should seek out if there were any other full colonels in the division who should be named (for parity). Normally there would only be the GSO1 (don't know about an SA division though. In the British army GSO1 would be a full colonel but sometimes was a lieutenant-colonel) since the Divisional engineer commander would have been a lieut.-col. as would the chief administrative staff officer (AQ). Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 18:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You're joking, yes! The Col's too? I presume the "AQ" stands for "Adventure Quest" Farawayman (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

By a stroke of luck, I found that the CRA had been promoted to temp Brig by 22 Oct 44. I am so pleased i no longer have to go scouting for Colonels! Farawayman (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Awriiiiiiight!! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 21:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The rank of brigadier was never held substantively. And the administrative officer (most likely a colonel) would have been known as the Assistant Adjutant and Quartermaster General (AA&QMG). Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Pusan Perimeter order of battle

Looking to make this my first Featured List. Looking to see what feedback I can get on how close it is to FL and what to do to improve. —Ed!^(talk) 20:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Cuprum17

• Caption of photo of MacArthur under UN Forces section is shown as Douglass MacArthur which redirects to Douglas MacArthur. Is this necessary? I don't believe his first name was spelled with two S's.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Is there any way to identify in your first table the commander of the 29th Regimental Combat Team and include that information in the table?
  • Addressed by merging that line w/ the division. —Ed!^(talk) 20:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• The term FEAF isn't put in parentheses after the unit Far East Air Force in the article. Would doing so help the reader? ex: Far East Air Force (FEAF)....
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• The Order of Battle looks overall very organized. Good luck with your FL. Cheers! Cuprum17 (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

This article is off to a good start. My comments/suggestions are:

• Why does the 'Sub-units' column only list the infantry components of units? Most of the US and Korean divisions included the equivalent of an artillery regiment as well as several specialist battalions
• If the 5th Regimental Combat Team was attached to the 24th Division throughout the battle, should it really be listed separately?
• You should add the corps-level units (eg, the artillery, logistics and other units which reported directly to the Corps headquarters)
• From memory, I think that most US air units were stationed in Japan during this battle, so it's not accurate to simply say that they were "shipped to Korea"
• It's not the case that all land-based air support was provided by the USAF; the Royal Australian Air Force's No. 79 Squadron RAAF also fought in this battle.
  • Hi Nick, was it 79 Sqn? I think it might have actually haven been No. 77 Squadron RAAF. I might be wrong, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, you're right - it was 77 Sqn, not 79. My mistake! Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• The coverage of the 16 August carpet bombing mission seems excessive; this could be covered in sentence
• In the North Korean section, it's not normally said that units were 'raised' to fight in a battle unless they were formed from scratch for this purpose; I think that you mean that they were 'deployed'
• Are you able to include information on the transport ships which supplied the UN forces and the North Koreans logistics arrangements? Logistics was ultimately what decided this battle.
• I'm surprised that you haven't made any use of Gordon Rottman's excellent book Korean War Order of Battle. This goes into great detail on the military forces engaged in the war, and the article has no realistic prospect of making FL without drawing on it as it's probably the definitive work on the subject. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

• don't think the punctuation in the notes column is correct, as they aren't full sentences, not sure a full stop is supposed to be there, amybe dot points more appropriate. Also in the first half, there are no separators between two dot points, they just run into each other YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo

• Too many clauses in this sentence, "UN forces proved superior...", split up.
• Punctuation needed between clauses, "The protracted battle around the perimeter"
• When did the Canadian flag change? ..."Its adoption in 1965"... incorrect Canadian flag for time period?
• DPRK Forces, notes should be attached to the last text in the line of a table box, not to the last table box, as you've done with Corps. Ie Lieutenant General Kim Ung _________________ [8] should be Lieutenant General Kim Ung [8], no?
• "This is seen by historians as one of the largest disadvantages " who? Marolda? Does Marolda say who? According to Marolda historians see...
• Publisher locations? Hippocrene Press is unknown to me. Neither is Brassey's or Robinson etc...
• West Coast Support Group: Task Group 96.8 : Korea 1950-1953 Colons normally aren't spaced for subsub titles. Are you sure this isn't a book in series?
• Maurer, Maurer (1983). Air Force Combat Units Of World War II. Maxwell AFB, Alabama: Office of Air Force History. (In notes). Was this a published book? If so Air Force Combat Units of World War II. Was this an unpublished report (ie: issued by the government without an ISBN?) if so, you've formatted it just right, but may need to write [Report] after the title to indicate that it isn't a published work. But it does have an ISBN :)
• Same issue: Ravenstein, Charles A. (1984). Air Force Combat Wings Lineage and Honors Histories 1947-1977. Maxwell AFB, Alabama: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0912799129.
• USAF Organizations in Korea 1950-1953 United States Air Force Office of Historical Research, Maxwell AFB, Alabama ia a dead link: http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/korean_war/usaf_organizations_korea/usaf_organizations_korea_introduction.html

Action of 9 November 1822

In one of the bloodiest actions of America's campaign against piracy in the 1820's, the boats of the USS Alligator attack a squadron of pirate vessels who manage to fight off the American assault and escape. This article just passed GA review and im wondering if there are any improvements that i should make before submitting it for A-class review.XavierGreen (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

• "Operations Against West Indian Pirates" Is that an official name/roper noun?
  • Yes thats the name used by the United States military for their campaign against pirates in the region at the time.XavierGreen (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Do we know what country the pirates were from. They aren't identified at all. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately none of the reliable sources state the nationality of the pirates, though they were most likely cuban or at the very least spanish in common. However since i cannot find a source for their nationality, inclusion of it would be OR, no?XavierGreen (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

JonCatalán

Some general commentary,

• "Fifteen leagues from Matanzas, Cuba" — I'm not sure what convention for this has been in past articles on similar topics, but it seems to me that it would make sense to convert "fifteen leagues" to its respective length in a modern unit of measurement. It is especially pertinent here, I think, because the "league" is defunct.
• "The band of pirates was rather large, consisting of around 125 men and three armed schooners." — Maybe the word "rather" should be replaced by "relatively"? It seems to me as if "relatively" would be more accurate, in this case.
  • Fixed this.XavierGreen (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• "These were the ship rigged vessel William Henry from New York, the brigs Iris and Sarah Morril from Boston, and one schooner each from Rochester and Salem." — Should that be two schooners? I don't know what "each" refers to. There were three piratical schooners, so it can't be one schooner per pirate ship. JonCatalán^(Talk) 00:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The two schooners refered to here were merchant vessels being held captive by the pirate schooners, i have attempted to clarify this in the text further.XavierGreen (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• You write that there were three pirate ships, but in the section titled 'action' you suggest that only Revenge was targeted? Why were the other two pirate schooners not engaged? If there is no reason available why, maybe there should be some clarification in the writing? Otherwise, it reads a bit incomplete.
  • Revenge was the first sighted and nearest to the Americans, i have tweaked the sentence to reflect that this was the first of three to be engaged.XavierGreen (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Regarding the above point, you do clarify this a bit later one: "With their commander mortally wounded and their crew taking heavy casualties, the American boats withdrew, thus allowing the second piratical schooner as well as a third that had not been engaged, to escape." — Perhaps you could clarify earlier in the text.

JonCatalán^(Talk) 00:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Magicpiano

Interesting read. I would add mention of the current status of the Alligator wreck site (especially since you have a modern photo of the area; is there any scholarship on it, or documents of finds brought up from it? possible source Magic♪piano 17:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Added some more information regarding this from the source you mentioned, virtually everything of use was salvaged from the ship before she was burnt.XavierGreen (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Kirk

• Its hard to follow the pirate ships without some kind of unique names for the unnamed ones - I would try to find a source for the names of the other two armed pirate ships, or instead of ordinal numbers (first schooner, second schooner) name them something (Schooner P1, Schooner P2? Medium and small?) and explain somewhere in the article why they have no names. The reference for this information is from 1853; its possible a more modern or reliable source has that information, but DANFS doesn't so I suspect this will not be easy to find. Its always hard to find reliable secondary sources which explain why something is unknown. You might need to go to a big library to find a few reliable print sources about this particular conflict instead of the google books you've relied on so far prior to your A review.
  • The modern sources in this situation are not reliable, they are all based off of the sources i use in the article and oftentimes add in material that is unsourced. Many modern sources mentioning this engagement are non-academic works and tell very little about the actual details of the engagement. The only source in which i found a name of one of the other pirate vessels involved is a primary source, but the author himself was accused of being a liar in a differant matter and as i cannot find the ship's name in offical government accounts or any secondary source i have excluded it. There is a book by Gardiner from the 1920's which may be of use, but it is extremely rare, out of print, not on google books, and not in any library near me. I will keep searching for more modern material.XavierGreen (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Regarding Jon's league comment, you could use Lat/Long coordinates to give an approximate location since DANFS (which should be referenced in this article) says it was 45 miles (~15 leagues) east of Matanzas, which really isn't close enough to Matanzas to warrant mentioning it. Kirk (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo

• 19th century action in small boats? Exciting! Ten miles of rowing...
• sweeps are a term of art in naval matters unfamiliar to the lay person. Have you considered wikilinking?
  • unfortunately no article exists to link it to.XavierGreen (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Were the prizes uncrewed by Pirates? Is this common piratical practice, or was it unusual?
  • None of the sources state that they were occupied when captured, and no pirates were captured so i would assume that they were either unoccupied or abandoned early in the action. Alas as no source states this it would be OR to include it.XavierGreen (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Is the formal name of the Department of the Navy and its NHH Command and UA Department in ALL CAPS? If not, use title case. "USS Alligator". Underwater Archaeology. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORY & HERITAGE COMMAND UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGY DEPARTMENT. 24 March 2009. http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org12-2.htm. Retrieved 27 September 2010.
  • Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Possible book in series, is so cite the series: Emmons, George Foster (1853). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I do not believe Emmons turned this into a series.XavierGreen (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thurisind

As part of my plan of expanding articles on late antique/early medieval "Barbarbarian" European kings I've created this article, expecting to make it a GA. Concerning the completeness and objectivity of the article I'm confident it's OK; the articles difficulties may eventually manifest themselves in the quality of the prose. Most importantly I'd like a careful evaluation of the lead and if the article is ready to stand up to a GAN. Aldux (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

TRFasulo

Barbarian kings! I love reading about those fun guys. And every time someone tells me that we live in the worst time in history, I get up and rush to the window and, looking out, yell, "Oh, my God! The Huns are coming! Or it is the Visigoths?"

The biggest problem I see with the article is the number of complex sentences that need to be split into separate sentences or shortened. Some examples,

• The Byzantines' plans to reduce the Gepids' power were ultimately successful: in 551 or 552 Thurisind was decisively defeated by Audoin, prompting at this point the intervention of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian, which forced a peace accord on both the opponents so that an equilibrium in the Pannonian Basin could be kept.

• Thus at Thurisind's death, sometime about 560, his other son Cunimund succeeded him, only to be also killed by Alboin in 567, when the latter became King of the Lombards.

• Thurisind found himself in a difficult situation, as the Byzantines had instigated in 547/548 or 546 the Lombards under Audoin to move in Pannonia to contain the Gepids, felt as a serious menace to the Byzantines' control on the Balkan frontier.

A sentence needs to convey an idea. Some of the sentences in the article jumble several ideas , resulting in confusion to the reader. These sentences need to be split out and, perhaps, the ideas they convey enlarged so that they build on one another.

For instance, in the last example above—while not knowing as much about the subject as you do so I may be making an historical mistake—I would rewrite the sentence as:

• Thurisind found himself in a difficult situation. Sometime during 546–548, the Byzantines had conspired to convince the Lombards under Audoin to move into Pannonia. It was hoped this would contain the Gepids, who the Byzantines felt were a serious menace to their interests on the Balkan frontier.

• • • Comment Thanks a lot for your help: it's greatly appreciated. I've worked on the critical sentences you noticed, hopefully making them sound better. Please tell me if there are some other awkward or unclear passages.Aldux (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Since you asked, I placed some other examples of complex sentences on the talk page. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hchc2009

An interesting piece - I too like the kings of this period! :)

My key comment would be that the sections don't explain much of the background - it assumes that we know who the Gepids, Byzantines etc. are. The links obviously give more info, but you could ease the way for the causal reader with a few introductory words in the main sections. e.g. "Thurisind rose to power in 548, succeeding on the throne Elemund." - you could say "Thurisind rose to power amongst the Gepids, a powerful east Germanic Gothic tribe, in 548. On the death of Elemund, the previous king, he seized the throne in a coup d'etat, forcing Elemund's son, Ostrogotha, into exile..." - it would just help build the picture up a little. The same, I think, applies to the later sections.

In the lead you mention an assassination, but I don't think you've covered that in the main bit of the article.

Nice set of references, BTW.

Hchc2009 (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment I followed your advice and expanded the context for the first section. I've avoided calling them Gothic because it's not all that pacific that they can be called "Goths" and scholars have had some debate on this. As for the assassination, maybe the lead gave the erroneous idea Elemund's son was killed immediately, but in reality it took place in 552 and thus his death is described under the "peace" section, i.e. the last one. I'll try now to expand the context in the second section. Thanks for your help, Aldux (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've elaborated on the context of the second section too. I think that now the meaning should be understandable. But please correct me, as these are things I know quite well it is possible I may still take too much for granted. Ciao,Aldux (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ian Rose

• A nice effort for a challenging subject -- well done there. Sourcing and illustrations look good, but the prose and presentation need attention. I took the liberty of copyediting First War with the Lombards, and made a few minor changes elesewhere, but have some other comments/queries:
  • Agree with earlier reviewers re. complex sentences. An example is right at the beginning, i.e. The next-to-last Gepid king, he succeeded Elemund, whose son Ostrogotha he excluded from the succession and years later was to had assassinated by a foreign king who had given him hospitality. At the very least, I assume you mean "was to have", or simply "had", rather than "was to had". In any case, it's a bit confusing as to who had been given hospitality, Thurisind or Ostrogotha...
    • Hope to have adressed this
  • The Byzantines' plans to reduce the Gepids' power obtained their goal when Audoin decisively defeated Thurisind in 551 or 552. is probably better rendered as The Byzantines' plans to reduce the Gepids' power came to fruition when Audoin decisively defeated Thurisind in 551 or 552. or some such.
    • Done
  • Unless War with the Lombards is the proper name of a conflict, "war" should be lower case in the heading First War with the Lombards.
    • Done
  • In the latter land a protracted conflict was pitting one against another Ostrogoths and Byzantines and Justinian wanted to be able to rush troops in Italy if they were needed. Don't really understand this sentence -- do we mean simply that the Ostrogoths were fighting the Byzantines?
    • Yes you've got it right, I was probably a bit unclear and also eliptic, so I throwed in some context on the Gothic war.
  • Don't forget the general MOS rule is that citations go outside punctuation.
    • Think it's OK; they're some citations after dates without punctuation, but I'm afraid that can't be avoided as the sources supporting each date must be recorded.
  • Another general rule is to place images on alternate sides of the page, rather than all on one side. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • • Comment Should have adressed all issue I think. Please tell me if you find anything that doesn't sind right, and thanks a lot for the advice. Aldux (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Looks like you've got everything, well done. I think you could take this to GA, maybe even MilHist A-Class afterwards -- feel free to let me know if you need further assistance re. copyediting as I'd be happy to lend a hand. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

llywrch

While this is an admirably well-written article, one thing I looked for & was disappointed by its absence was citing the primary sources directly. Both Procopius & Paul the Deacon are mentioned in this article, yet no details where they made these statements -- i.e., book, chapter & lines numbers. Or even the page of a given translation. The reason I look for this information is that I'm one of those who uses encyclopedia articles as shortcuts to finding specific passages in historical accounts, one of their many uses; the only reason for not including these citations would be concern over original research, & it's clear that there is little -- if any -- original research in this article. -- llywrch (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ilywrch and thanks a lot for dropping by. The issue you raise is very interesting, but I must admit I avoided the phobia I've developed for anything that may even vaguely hint to OR, which is a reason why I've always avoided relying on primary sources unless this was filtered by a secondary source, as not everything that is mentioned in a primary source is per se important enough to be mentioned. But I must admit that something is lost this way, which is why in this article and in my previous Alboin I inserted extensive passages. This article being shorter I only inserted one, Thurisind's feast for Alboin.Aldux (talk) 15:

Fifelfoo

• Sadly I'm not peer reviewing the prose, only citations
• Procopius De Bello Gothico, Book IV, Ch. 18. Surely Procopius De Bello Gothico, Book IV, Ch. 18. as per your style in the footnotes
  • Done.
• Similarly with Paul the Deacon Historia Langobardorum, Book I, Ch. 24
  • Done.
• Do we have an original writing date for: Prococopius 1928, p. 235? As in when Prococopius wrote.
  • No, not really, but we know he's a contemporary, added it to the article (by original date you mean the year in which Procopius wrote the work, right?).
• Prococopius 1928, probably too much coco. Procopius?
  • Thanks for catching that one.
• Page ranges are out of style. Some are given 99–101, some are given 99 – 101. Consistency.
  • Found one that had escaped my notice, should be in order now.
• Bibliography style, inconsistency. "YEAR, ISBN####" versus "YEAR, pagerange. ISBN####"
  • The iconsitency, if we are speaking of the same thing, is only apparent; the two different criteria are necessary because the first reflects the full book, the second instead a single chapter in a collective work.
• Bibliography, commas out of style in publication information, no publisher or location, "Procopius. History of the Wars, Books VII (continued) and VIII. Henry Bronson Dewing (translator). 1928 [1962]. ISBN 3-1761-00801257-7."
  • Should be OK.
• But overall, excellent citations! Really superb. Great selection of scholarly material. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for the kind words! :-)Aldux (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No. 4 Commando

Another British Commando unit, for review possibly the most most experienced operationally, with the Dieppe raid, Normandy landings and the battle of the Scheldt, As all ways any comments welcome. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Trfasulo

There seems to be an abundance of complex sentences in the article, which can lead to some confusion to most readers. Personally, I wish people were more used to such sentences, but the world is changing. Plus, people read text on computer screens differently then they do on paper. Where possible, you might consider breaking down the complex sentences into shorter sentences. This produces a more 'active' style on screen and is easier to read. Some examples:

• "By 1942 they were much more experienced and their actions during the Dieppe raid, when they silenced a German gun battery, was the only complete success of the operation, the raid was eventually aborted following heavy losses."

To:

"By 1942, they were much more experienced and their actions during the Dieppe raid, when they silenced a German gun battery, was the only complete success of the operation. The raid was eventually aborted following heavy losses."

Plus, should it be "their action" (singular) to be in agreement with "was the only complete success."

• "In fact they were still there 82 days later, protecting the left flank of the beachhead, during which No. 4 Commando took over 50 percent casualties."

To:

"In fact, they were still there 82 days later, protecting the left flank of the beachhead. During that time period, No. 4 Commando took over 50 percent casualties.

Watch your commas, or absence of, too.

• "By the autumn of 1940 more than 2,000 men had volunteered and in November 1940 these new units were organised into a Special Service Brigade consisting of four battalions under the command of Brigadier J. C. Haydon"

To:

"By the autumn of 1940, more than 2,000 men had volunteered. During November 1940, these volunteers were organised into a Special Service Brigade consisting of four battalions under the command of Brigadier J. C. Haydon."

Should "units" be deleted and and "volunteers" or "men" substituted? Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)  Done thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo

• Citation presentation
• Bibliography

  Stroud, Barnsley and Santa Barbara require containing location, ie Nation or State

 Done

• Short citations

  A number are broken at wiki-markup level, this may be due to an ongoing copy-edit

  Bracket / unbracket years to consistency

  Internally link citations to bibliography or unlink for consistency

I think this was during the copy edit but all fixed now.

• Otherwise looking pretty good on citation consistency / presentation. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Third Anglo-Maratha War

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to areas of improvement for getting this article listed as a GA. Thanks, Zuggernaut (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Looks pretty good to me. I have a few style comments:

• there are a few disambig links that should be fixed: [2]
• one external link appears to be dead: [3]
• the capitalisation of the titles in the References section should be in accordance with WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles
• per Wikipedia:MOS#Dates ordinal suffixes with dates
• the peer review script indicates that there are some contractions in the article such as "weren't". Generally contractions shouldn't be used unless they are direct quotes;
• the References should be sorted into alphabetical order by author's surname;
• there is an inconsistent date format in the article. For instance, "January 1, 1818", or "1st of January 1818" in the Flight of the Peshwa section. Consistency is the key, but you need to bear in mind that ordinal suffixes shouldn't be used, so I suggest "January 1, 1818";
• "suzerainty" should be linked, as it is a word that some readers might not understand;
• the final part of the End of the war and its effects section should have a citation;
• do you have any casualty figures? If so, they should probably be added to the infobox;
• the End of the war and its effects section is very large, could you perhaps split the paragraph a bit?
• the time format is not consistent with the WP:MOS#Times, for instance in the Subjugation of Holkar section, "nine AM" should be "9:00 am" (making sure to include the non breaking space). AustralianRupert (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Magicpiano

Looks like a good start. Things to work on:

• Assume your reader is a 12-year-old American child with a modern atlas. Does this person know who Shivaji (mentioned in first paragraph without explanation) is?
• I think you need at least a paragraph describing in a little more detail the history of the Marathas (and specifically their relations with the British) in the 18th century. Presumably there are roots of conflict that are deeper than the proximate casus belli mentioned? (At one point you mention the war as "mopping up" after the second war, but give little background on the nature and course of that war.)
• The article needs maps depicting campaign movements, not just geographic maps. File:India british expansion 1805a.jpg might be a good starting point, but I have no visual sense of what part of the subcontinent is the actual theater of war, and how forces moved within it.
• This period in Indian history uses terminology that will be unfamiliar to casual readers from other cultures. Brief clauses explaining for example that the Peshwa was the nominal ruler of the empire, and what a "resident" is are necessary; do not assume that readers will click through to a linked page for these and other terms, like Pindari and Nizam (neither of which is explained or linked at first mention).
• You use "third anglo-maratha war" several times in the article; this is unnecessary, we already know the name of the war. (If you have to distinguish from other wars, use a phrase like "this war" instead of "the war".)
• A war (or campaign) article should provide context for specific actions, and (in my opinion) be short on battle details, unless strategy or larger outcomes hinge on those details. Many campaigns consist of movements with few or no major battles; this is what you need to tell about here. The section "Subjugation of Holkar" is lacking in context; if I want a detailed description of the battle, I'll click through to the battle; tell me where Holkar is and why, and how and why the British came to target him and bring him to battle. I have no sense of where British and Maratha forces were concentrated to begin their campaigns, and where they went, or were intending to go when battles were engaged.
• In a good way, many or most of the Indian leaders are named. Less so with the British, who are often faceless and nameless. Who led the forces against the Pindaris?
• The British are sometimes referred to as "English".
• In "The Pindaris" you say that Shinde and Holkar lost their territories in the second war. In the next paragraph you say that Shinde and Holkar are sheltering the Pindaris in their territory. Something is not right with this...
• You never actually link in text the first two wars.
• Were there internal disagreements among the Marathas that are important to mention? the British?
• I don't know how strong your English is; the article definitely needs thorough copyediting.

--Magic♪piano 17:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hchc2009

• A lot of work's clearly gone into this.
• The Khadki battleground is described, but the article could usefully tell the reader more about the general terrain of the campaign - is the region mountainous, desert, jungle etc.?
• You mention that there were infantry, cavalry and guns, and that the British had higher technology, but the article might usefully explain a little bit more about what the armies were equipped with or what that higher technology was.
• The British East India company is mentioned in the infobox, but in the prelude you talk about the British Empire - I think the two were different entities?
• I'd echo the recommendations above for getting some help with the copyediting - a lot of the language being used isn't quite right and detracts from the considerable research that's gone into the article.

Hchc2009 (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

TRFasulo

I think you have already received enough suggestions, so I won't burden you with many more. I really looked at the article as I am fascinated by the British Raj. Then I saw the phrase:

"...the armies lost battles and got slaughtered when a(<-delete) they encountered a river, unable to discover fjords or locate boats."

I wondered about that. I suggest that it needs a bit more explanation. Perhaps dates and who the enemy was. Not too much though, as the article isn't about that. On the other hand, it might be better to just delete that phrase completely.

You also use the term "fjords." Is that appropriate to India? I though that term was just applied in Scandinavia?

My major criticism, and I didn't look to see if this was already suggested, is that your Reference section is not alphabetized by author. This makes the references difficult to find. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert's Recommendations

I've made all of the recommended changes except:

• do you have any casualty figures? If so, they should probably be added to the infobox;

Separate numbers for the various battles of the war are available but I thought adding them to obtain a casualty number for the war might amount to OR. I will keep looking for a source that gives a direct total number for the entire war. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Magicpiano's Recommendations

I've made all the recommended changes except the following two items:

1. The article needs maps depicting campaign movements, not just geographic maps. File:India british expansion 1805a.jpg might be a good starting point, but I have no visual sense of what part of the subcontinent is the actual theater of war, and how forces moved within it.
2. A war (or campaign) article should provide context for specific actions, and (in my opinion) be short on battle details, unless strategy or larger outcomes hinge on those details. Many campaigns consist of movements with few or no major battles; this is what you need to tell about here. The section "Subjugation of Holkar" is lacking in context; if I want a detailed description of the battle, I'll click through to the battle; tell me where Holkar is and why, and how and why the British came to target him and bring him to battle. I have no sense of where British and Maratha forces were concentrated to begin their campaigns, and where they went, or were intending to go when battles were engaged.

I'm currently working on these and will continue looking for a map. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The background material is significantly improved, I have a much better sense of who the players are; good work. For maps, if there are not period campaign maps to be found, you may have to make your own, using a more general roughly-period map either as a background, or something from which to trace boundary lines on a more schematic map. This can be done using Inkscape; see Battle of Ridgefield and Battle of The Cedars for maps I made using these techniques. Magic♪piano 18:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've provided the context for the Holkar sub-section and locations/headquarters of all other Maratha leaders. The only item pending now is:

• The article needs maps depicting campaign movements, not just geographic maps. File:India british expansion 1805a.jpg might be a good starting point, but I have no visual sense of what part of the subcontinent is the actual theater of war, and how forces moved within it.

I will look at Inkscape and make the maps over the next week or two.

Hchc2009's recommendations

• The geography was vast - I've made some changes and added terrain information for each Maratha leader's territory separately at the beginning of this section Third_Anglo-Maratha_War#Commencement

• That makes it clearer. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I could not find too much information on the technology of the weapons of Marathas but I found some saying what they didn't have and that they mostly imported artillery. I've made those changes here -- Third_Anglo-Maratha_War#Prelude

• That made it clearer for me. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Nomenclature changes - The British East India company is now mentioned consistently, references to the British Empire are taken off. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• One subtlety that is often glossed over in histories of 18th century India is that some of the forces used were in fact British Army regiments; they were certainly present in some Indian conflicts of that time. I don't know if this is true of this conflict; I'd suspect it to be so. This would mean that the UK (and not just the BEIC) was also a participant in the war at some level. (P.S. the commanders in the infobox need fixing. I don't think Warren Hastings (d. 1818 in England) was involved; perhaps a different Hastings?) Magic♪piano 20:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused about the whole UK-EIC-English-British nomenclature because I've found that some sources even refer to them as "English". To my knowledge using "English" is incorrect. Buy maybe it has to do with the history of the UK at that time? It looks like it was the different Hastings you've linked to. I will make that change. Zuggernaut (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"English" is definitely deprecated usage, at least for events since 1707. As far as EIC vs. UK, my understanding is at best incomplete, but goes like this. Before the passage of the India Act 1784 the EIC operated nominally independently of UK policy, but the need for Crown troops and collateral effects of company actions on diplomacy led to that act, which effectively put the government in control of the company, which continued to exist (until the 1857 rebellion, I guess). I don't know if or when the distinction between Crown and company troops was erased; it was certainly not at the time of Cornwallis in the 1790s, when the difference (over relative rank and pay between the two) was one of the problems he left behind. I'd be surprised if the large number of troops Hastings amassed did not include Crown or former Crown troops (this was peacetime in Europe, just after Napoleon). It should at some point be clear that such troops were present in India; details are of course for campaign or battle articles. Magic♪piano 20:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

TRFasulo's recommendations

• Fixed fjords, provided more explanation why the armies got slaughtered.
• Arranged references in alphabetical order. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Diannaa

• I would like to see a little information about the Bombay Council and the Calcutta Council. What were these councils, and why were they at odds with each other?
• You mention the "foresight and persistence" of Warren Hastings but we are not told what exactly he did. Could you provide some details? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 17:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• You state the Peshwa fled until January 1, but the battle was also on January 1 so that cannot be correct. Please check your sources and fix the date. I have marked the spot with a {{contradiction-inline}} tag.
• What do the words "inam" and "watan" mean? You do not define them, and we have no articles. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• A lot of the material in the last three paragraphs appears to have been lifted directly from the sources. This is of course a copyright violation. Please re-work this material and put it in your own words. The last paragraph appears to have been lifted directly from MacDonald. And some in the first has come directly from Hunter and some from Black. I have removed the entire last section and it will all have to be re-worked, so sorry.
• Copy edits are now completed. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The last three paragraphs have been rephrased or removed. Explanation for Watan and Inam has beeen provided in the form of footnotes. I will work on the remaining (first 3) bullet items over the next few days. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. Regards, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

• In the 18th century were the places called Bombay, Chennai, calcutta. Had the British taken them over and renamed them yet?
• Article talks about Maharashtra as though it existed in the old days
• Page format in the footnotes were inconsistent wrt p and pp, and also things like 216-7 and 226-227. Also some of them need to be switched to ndashes YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Sources confirm the names Bombay Council, Calcultta Council and administrative units such as Bombay Presidency, Madras Presidency are mentioned for our time period of interest (1817-1819).
• Maharashtra is mentioned independently twice - I will change that to Maratha Empire or something more appropriate. It is mentioned in conjunction with phrases like "modern state of Maharashtra" in 1 or 2 more places which doesn't seem inaccurate.
• Will fix the p/pp, numbering and dashes. Any links/help on how to run scripts to fix dashes? Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• I used this script on the dashes. Sometimes it misses a few, but it usually gets most of them. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron

Another B that I hopefully can get to GA. I want some suggestions before I try for GAN, though. WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 18:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Good work so far. I'm afraid I can't really comment on the content specifically, but I have a few other observations that you might consider:

• you appear to have used the same image twice in the article (the two F5s with a MiG 17 and MiG 21). Is this a mistake or did you intend to do this?

done

• some paragraphs need citations: e.g. the last paragraph in Origins section and the last paragraph in HAVE MiGs;

done

• I think that the Aircraft list should sit outside the History section;

done

• the citations should be outside punctuation per WP:PAIC, however, there are a few in the lead that need to be tweaked;

done

• It is probably best not to use contractions such as "wasn't" as this is too informal for an encyclopedia, thus it is better to use "was not" instead;

can you list an example? I cannot find one

In the Origins section, this clause here: "...veteran F-4 pilot Gail Peck, who wasn't satisfied with..." (my emphasis). AustralianRupert (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• the year range in the infobox should have an endash per WP:DASH instead of a hyphen.

done

• did the information from the Reference come from multiple pages, or just one page? If it is multiple pages you need to have different citations that make this clear. Currently you appear to either be saying that all the information came from Davies page 352 or the entire book. For an example of this, please take a look at Battle of Berlin;

will fix as soon as I recieve the book from the library

• the links to HAVE DRILL and HAVE DOUGHNUT are circular links back to this article, is that necessary?

done WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 22:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• there is inconsistent date formatting in the article. In the infobox you have "March 4, 1988", but in the Accidents section you have "23 August 1979". These should be consistent;

done WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 22:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Red Eagle is a disambig link that should be fixed: [4];

it's a hatnote, should be a dablink WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 22:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair call. I really should start checking the tools better. Apologies. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• be careful of overlinking terms, for example you have linked Air Force Systems Command twice in consequective sentences in the HAVE MiGs section, also MiG 17 is linked twice in the Aircraft subsection (the general rule at GA and above is usually link once in the lead, in the infobox and upon first mention in the prose, but no more than that);

done. At least this won't get tagged with {{wikify}} soon! WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 22:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• the prose is a bit indistinct about when the squadron commenced operations. The infobox lists the date as May 1, 1980, but in the Accidents section you list an accident that occured in 1979. I think this might be cleared up if you added a distinct "Operations" section after "Origins", and say quite clearly when the squadron came into being;

done WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 22:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• are there any other sources that you could consult? Currently you really only use one, but I think at successful GAN would require a few more than that. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

no WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 22:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

FN Five-seven

I have been working toward Featured Article status, so any feedback is appreciated. ROG5728 (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Woody

This is a good article but I have a couple of issues with it.

• In a few instances the article is written from a gun enthusiasts perspective rather than an informed reader. Take "Despite the considerable length of the pistol's 5.7x28mm cartridge, the distance from the trigger to the backstrap measures 69.85 mm (2.75 in), exactly the same as an M9 pistol.[13]" for example. What relevance is this to a layman. Why should I be interested in the M9 Pistol or indeed how should I know what an average distance is?
• "with a follower that has the same appearance as that of an M16 rifle's magazine," same thing here, why the comparison? Is the M16 rifle relevant to a pistol?
• There seems to be a slight inconsistency with how you deal with units in the ammunition section. Some are 30mm some 30-mm some 30 mm. It needs a bit of consistency per WP:MOSNUM, something some FAC regulars pick up on.
• So, only a couple of issues really. The prose could do with some work as to me it was a bit full of technical specifications that broke up the text, but that may be unavoidable I guess. Woody (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wendell Fertig

This was a stub that I took to B-class. Since then I have added a lot more and wish to have it peer reviewed. I'd like to see it go to A-class and even higher. Wendell Fertig was a Lt.Col. in the U.S. Army reserve and commanded the 10th Military District in the Philippines during the Japanese occupation. Several Web movie sites, including the NY Times, state that there is a movie "in development" on Fertig with Brad Pitt in the lead role. As such, this could become a popular page to view on WP. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Just a few quick style comments from me. Sorry, I don't have time at the moment to read the whole article. What I did read seemed quite good.

• • per WP:DASH emdashes should not be spaced;
    • Thanks. I think I got them all.Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • per WP:PAIC, citations should go after punctuation;
    • Fixed. ThanksThomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • per Wikipedia:MILMOS#Capitalization, ranks shouldn't be capitalised unless used as a proper noun, e.g Captain Fertig, or Fertig was commissioned as a captain;
    • Thanks. I think I got them all.Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • the names of commissioned warships usually should be in italics, for instance "USS Narwhal" in the Fighting the Japanese section is not in italics,
    • Thanks. I think I got them all.Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • per WP:LEAD the lead is a little too long, the general rule is a maximum of four paragraphs;
    • Fixed. Thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • the end of some paragraphs is not covered with a citation, for instance the last part of the last sentence in the "Avoiding capture" section;
    • Fixed. Thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • you might consider formatting the works in the References with the {{cite book}} or {{cite web}} templates as this will ensure that you use a consistent style;
  • for the books that are too old for ISBNs, you might consider adding OCLC numbers to them. These can be found by searching here: [5].
    • Done. Thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney

• This His experience as an engineer, with its training in solving problems, would enable him to face the challenges as a leader of the Mindanao guerrillas. needs a cite and how did it ? could be POV.
  • Changed text slightly and added a quote from Schmidt (1982) to support above. Schmidt uses five sources to support his statement. Thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• So does this section Many of the emerging guerrilla forces at that time were simply bandit groups pretending to fight the Japanese, but really using the collapse of the American-supported government to set themselves up as rulers of local areas. These groups competed with each other for territory and authority.
  • Added two citations to support text. Thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• Here as well When the war ended, Fertig resumed his career as an engineer. He is widely regarded as a hero by the people of Mindanao, and was a highly respected figure among the U.S. Special Forces.
  • Fixed. Added citation. Thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• The In fiction section is unreferenced and at only three lines should be expanded or included in the section above.
  • Done. Thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• REFS 2 & 19 - 12 , 14 & 22 - 35 & 36 are the same consider using ref name.
  • Thanks. I think I got them all—these and others.Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ian Rose

• This is an ambitious biography that appears well-sourced and organised, however I'm concerned about the prose. I've listed some things below but this doesn't cover every part of the article by any means. Please have a go at addressing these specifically, and review the rest of the article to see if you can make similar improvements elsewhere. At some stage I may have time to perform a thorough copyedit myself, if you'd like. I think this does have the potential for GA/A and perhaps even FA, but the issues need to be addressed. From the top...

• Finally got my new home system up and running. I'll attend to many of these comments over the weekend. I'm also looking forward to adding those images I discuss below. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Pre-war
  • You have After he completed high school... followed by After graduating... -- Perhaps an "after" could become "following" or some such to avoid repetition.

Reworded. Thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• • United States Army Corps of Engineers is linked twice in successive sentences. Aside from delinking the second instance, perhaps it could just be shortened to "Engineers" to avoid repetition.

Funny, how you can overlook some things. I shortened to "Army Engineers." Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• • In January 1942, after the U.S. Army began evacuating the wives and children of military families. Mary Fertig and their two daughters, Patricia and Jean, left on the last evacuation ship to leave the Philippines and returned to the United States. -- As it stands, I assume the full stop after "families" is supposed to be a comma but even so, it's a long and comlex sentence, so could we say In January 1942, the U.S. Army began evacuating the wives and children of military families. Mary Fertig and their two daughters, Patricia and Jean, left on the last evacuation ship to leave the Philippines, and returned to the United States.?

Actually, that wouldn't be quite correct, as the U.S. began evacuating dependents in the latter half of 1941. The Fertigs left on the last ship in January 1942. This according to an interview with Fertig's daughter that is no longer on the Web. Another source says they left earlier. I'll see what I can do. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• • "Unfortunately" is an emotive term, and doesn't really belong in a WP article.

Fixed. Thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Early war experiences
  • Some of Fertig's duties during the retreat to Bataan and Corregidor were the destruction of supplies left behind by retreating American forces. -- Probably better rendered as Among Fertig's duties during the retreat to Bataan and Corregidor was the destruction of supplies left behind by retreating American forces.

Done. Thanks.

• • He even drove his new Dodge car into Manila Bay. -- Not certain of the significance of this, are we saying he used his own private vehicle during his supply-destroying forays?

I see this as attention to detail and a little light humor that helps every story. I reworded it. Thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Avoiding capture
  • "red-goatee" doesn't need a hyphen.

Fixed. thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Even Americans serving in his command often referred to him as "The Old Man". -- I'm not sure this is as significant as the Filipinos calling him "old man", I think many Allied soldiers referred to their particular CO as "The Old Man"...

Deleted. Thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• • "i.e.," doesn't need a comma, just the two full stops.

Fixed. Thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• • "amazing" isn't very encyclopedic -- "major" or "serious" would be preferable.

Reworded. Thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• • It seemed an impossible task, until their makeshift radio worked and they began to receive transmissions from other radios. But were they successfully transmitting? Then, on 31 January 1943, the U.S. Navy radio monitoring station in San Francisco answered their call sign! -- This reads like a Boys' Own adventure, suggest rewording to something like Their makeshift radio worked and they began to receive transmissions from other radios. However they had no way of knowing if their own transmissions were successful until, on 31 January 1943, the U.S. Navy radio monitoring station in San Francisco answered their call sign.

Reworded. Thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• • You use "In fact" twice in successive sentences -- it's actually preferable to avoid this phrase entirely in encyclopedic articles.

Deleted throughout. Thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Their role, as Smith and Parsons immediately explained to Fertig, was to verify if he was actually leading a resistance movement and, if so, was it worth the risk of men and supplies to support him. -- Probably better rendered as Their role, as Smith and Parsons immediately explained to Fertig, was to verify that he was actually leading a resistance movement and, if so, whether if was worth the risk of men and supplies to support him.

I had to read that three times before I saw the word change. But I see your point. Correction made. Thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• • The guerrillas only purpose... -- "guerrillas" is plural possessive, so needs an inverted comma at the end.

Fixed. Thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Fertig's most appalling lack -- "serious" is more encyclopedic than "appalling".

Fixed. Thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Post-war
  • Considering just Fertig's military achievements in the Philippines at great risk of his life, why did he not receive the Medal of Honor? And why, when he commanded so irregular guerrillas, was he not promoted to the rank of brigadier general when other men, never in combat, often received that rank as the U.S. Army army grew in size? Was this a deliberate effort by MacArthur or his staff to minimize Fertig's achievements? Considering MacArthur's professed love for the Philippines and its people, you wonder why he would not reward a man who helped the Filipinos maintain their honor during the war by resisting the Japanese so effectively. -- These sort of rhetorical questions and personal pronouns don't belong in an encyclopedic article, you'd need to rephrase this to something like Various scholars such as [...] have questioned why... or some such, otherwise it looks like editorialising and/or original research.

Reworded this, deleted and added text, citation, etc. Thanks. There is a lot more about this in Manchester and Schmidt. Also, tales of infighting between U.S. Navy and Army, with Fertig in the middle and a loser whichever side he supported. This finishes your suggestions here, but I'll be reviewing the entire article in the next few days to see what else I might change. Thanks for your help. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Leaving prose issues aside for the moment, the body looks a bit spartan without any images. Are there any others of Fertig? Failing that, there may be some 'contextual' ones you could add, for instance of Filipino guerillas in action. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the idea, as I never even thought of associated images. I searched WP Commons tonight and found several I could use. I will look them over later this week and select some. I know of only four images of Fertig, including the one in the article. That one took the help of another, more experienced, editor to get approved. Another is owned by the Colorado School of Mines, and they want their name, logo and such included. A third is of Fertig in typical SE Asian peasant hat with goatee. It had to be taken on Mindanao. After my experience with the first image, I shied away from uploading it. I may try again. A fourth is on Peter Parson's page about his father Charles Parsons, but it just says "guerrilla leader" even though it is obvious it is Fertig. Charles and Peter apparently didn't like Fertig and Peter never answered my request about the image, although I had discussed his father's WP page with him over several days. I'm getting a new home system tomorrow and may not be able to work from here for few days. I sometimes steal time at work. We'll see. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I added six images tonight. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

USS PC-1264

I picked up a copy of Black Company and after reading it looked on WP to see if it was represented. I found a stub and decided that the story of the ship needed to be told. I started in November 2009, and then left it for months. Recently, I completed it and it was upgraded to B-class. I made some more improvements, including two images. Now I'd like to see it go higher, and maybe one day even be a FA. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I added three more U.S. Navy images showing the crew (2) and a practice depth charge run (1) with explosions during the shakedown cruise. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is a very strong article. You've made good use of the available sources and the article is an interesting read. My suggestions for further improvements are:

• Wikipedia generally avoids text stating that the topics of articles "deserves to be remembered" - the assumption that anything which is notable deserves to be here. Text like "proud of the ship and the men who had relieved them" is also best avoided as it's emotive
  • Fixed. Thanks.Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Some background on the design and role of this class of ships would be interesting and would provide useful context
  • Fixed. Thanks.Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Background on how this ship came to have an African American crew (and why such crews weren't more common) would be valuable
  • Done. I added a few paragraphs and went into some detail when I realized that this information, aside from a few allusions, was not really present in WP. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• On what date did the ship possibly engage a submarine while escorting Convoy NG-448, and is is possible to be more precise about whether this was an actual German submarine or a false alert (which were much more common than German subs in the west Atlantic by 1944)
  • No date is given for this attack. But Purdon's book states the ship escorted the convoy for "a week at the end of July." It also states the incident happened on the first day. Later the text states the convoy arrived in Guantanamo on 27 July. Therefore, making an educated guess, I placed text in the article stating the incident happened on 21 July. If this is a problem, we can amend that to state "late July." I also added text stating the contact was a large underwater object and, following SOP, the PC-1264 attacked until the convoy was safely out of range. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk)
• "a radio signal detached three of the ships" - is a bit unclear. It might be best to say that "a radioed order detached three of the ships" as it was the order rather than the signal which led to this change
  • Fixed. Thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• As above, on what date did the sub possibly detect a German submarine near Buoy Able?
  • Found the date. Will add it now. Thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• It's not the case that the sinking of U-538 was the final action of the Battle of the Atlantic; U-881 was sunk by the US Navy on 5 May.
  • Fixed. Thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• What's the ship's current condition? While the article states that she's still extant, the satellite imagery at the coordinate provided suggests that she's one of a large number of beached hulls - is this the case? Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Contacted owner (Priolo et al. online reference.) of Web site that has 1990-era images that shows PC-1264 as a rusted hulk still afloat amid other ships sold for scrap. No answer after 10 days. So I added a sentence explaining the 1990s images.Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

HMS Liverpool (C11)

It's great to see MILHIST is as active and hospitable as it's always been, along with many familiar account names, too! This article's been substantially expanded since its last PR...about two years. I've reached an impasse; there's only limited potential now for appreciable expansion. It's comprehensive within the availability of sources and accurately representative of the sources used. I'm hesitant about nominating it for FA status and it definitely would benefit from fresh insight. SoLando (Talk) 09:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yoenit

Article seems to be in very good shape, well done. Might I suggest you withdraw the peer review and head for A-class review instead? I don't think peer this review is going bring any major points which can't be handled during A-class review and if you pass for that it is just a short jump to FA.

comments:

• I prefer a separate section on the construction and design of the ship (first two paragraphs). I also think you can flesh out the first paragraph a bit more, explain for example the differences from the Arethusa class and what the design was based on.

• Implemented. I've expanded it a little bit. I'll try to intrdouce more detail later on.

• too many external links. Have a critical look at them.

• Rationalised

• What makes uboat.net a reliable source? Yoenit (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  I'm not entirely sure...;-) I'll attempt to locate an alternative source, but there's actually some discrepancy as to who succeeded Captain Read. I might delete that if I can't verify AL Poland's command in the next few days. SoLando (Talk) 12:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Woody

The article looks really good and I echo the A-Class comment made above.

• Structurally, the current structure for ship articles such as these is to have a design/construction section separate from the career section. I don't really mind either way but probably lean more to having a separate section for quick reference.
• Do we know who the wife of the Governor of the Bank of England was who christened her?

• Identified her and quoted a part of her speech at the launch ceremony.

• Dates, I note you use "On the 28th", some FA reviews particularly love MOSNUM which doesn't like this form, but it works within the prose, so hey ho.

• It's been an agonising struggle to minimise the repetition of full months and noun gender ;-)

• You spelt ABC's name wrong, it's Cunningham. ;)

• Ahem

• A couple of the external links could be pruned [6] and [7] don't seem to add a great deal.

  Removed. The former does offer some fascinating accounts of Liverpool's interception of the Asama Maru and her torpedoing, albeit without any discernable attribution.

• As you can see, these are all pretty small niggles. This is looking really good, well done. Regards Woody (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, A-class review it is! Thank you both for your suggestions - and it's great to see you around, Woody! SoLando (Talk) 12:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Buckshot06

One thing you might check. Was the ship involved in Operation Recoil, the final operation in regard to the Corfu Channel Incident? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, Liverpool was in Greek waters at the time of the incident and I think Liverpool was referenced in a book dealing with the mining. I'll Google it... SoLando (Talk) 09:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney

• Nit picking but there is no need to use the British Royal Navy in the lede, Royal Navy will suffice.

• Omitted, although it was historically encouraged on Wikipedia. Has the convention changed?

• She commissioned into the navy on 2 November 1938. Does not read right She was commissioned or just Commissioned would be better.

• Rephrased

• Consider linking armoured cruiser San Giorgio, and sank the minesweeper Giovanni Berta. It will add red links but then it would encourage creation of the articles.

• Linked. I'll see if I can stubify them.

• Mixing of dates we have the 9 July than a bit further on 29th and 30th.

• Clarified. It's not an attempt to disregard MoS, just trying to minimise the repetition of full dates ;-).

• 12 sailors (including one unidentifiable) does this mean they did not know who he was ?

• Presumably he was later identified, but at the time could not be due to his wounds (although that isn't explicitly stated as the reason). Clarified.

• Is radio direction finder the correct link, while RDF is the correct term, should it not link to Radar ?

  Piped.

• The Imperial War Museum has a picture of her in dock at Rosyth which you could use.

• Excellent! I'll upload this image later on.

• Is this correct In September 1951, Liverpool became the first British warship to visit Yugoslavia since the beginning of the war should it not be since the end of the war. Numerous RN ships docked at Yugoslav islands during the war. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, there's absolutely no elaboration on the context in the source used. It notes only that she was the first RN warship to visit the country since the beginning of the war. According to the New York Times, Liverpool was the first "Western" ship to do so in 12 years. It's possible that this refered to Liverpool being the first warship to visit the Yugsolav mainland, rather than the Dalmatian Islands, or that it was the first formal-cum-fly-the-flag visit. The sources aren't that specific :-/. Thank you, Jim! SoLando (Talk) 17:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo

• I sadly sub-edit citations, or happily for editors who detest knowing their internals.

  Haha. I certainly don't hold that against you!

• Article shows signs of two bibliographic styles being merged, neither dominant, neither providing complete citation information of works cited (largely missing publication information, possibly missing secondary information of lesser importance like works in series).

  Slowly standardising.

• One citation style is highly atypical with regards to articles in periodicals (magazines, newspapers)
• Bibliography:

  Colledge, J. J.; Warlow, Ben (2006) [1969]. Is 2006 a reprint, or is 2006 the Rev. ed.? Might pay to specify this?

  Rohwer, Jürgen & Hümmelchen, Gerhard (1992). Fullstop after location/publisher for your style. Location?

  Titterton, G.A. (2002). Routledge publishes in a ton of locations. Which did you consult? (UK/US paginations often vary).

  Whitley, M. J. (2000). Location?

  All addressed. I've replaced the generic Colledge with the edition I used in the article.

• Short citations:

  Colledge, J.J. & Warlow, Ben (2003). ?? 2006 1969 is in the bibliography?

  Stephen, Martin & Grove, Eric (1993); Bishop, Chris (2002); Brown, Paul (2009); a general problem. Citation not given in full, full citation not given in bibliography.

  Mason, Geoffrey B. (2004). Fullcitation given in bibliography.

  Removed

  A general problem with non-standard style used for newspaper articles; for example, Latest Cruiser Launched, The Glasgow Herald, 25 March 1937, p. 12. Highly non-standard citation of a newspaper article. [author if available] "Article Title," Newspaper Title?

  Reformatted?

  A City’s Gift to Warship. H.M.S. Liverpool in the Mersey. Find a better online copy please? This copy is hosted at a website for which an individual member of staff of a University (no guarantee they're academic) takes editorial responsibility.

  I've belatedly realised that I have access to the archives through my indispensable library card!

  Waters, Sydney David (1956), Needs a fuller citation. Requires both original publication information, and Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Electronic Text Centre as the current publisher. Try: Waters, Sydney David [1956] (2004), The Royal New Zealand Navy, Official History of New Zealand in the Second World War 1939–45, Wellington, New Zealand: War History Branch, Department of Internal Affairs; reprinted electronically Official War History project, Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Electronic Text Centre. Retrieved 12 April 2008.

  Apart from other work required, correct the hyphen British Warships Here at least 12; Navy Lists Warspite, 2 Car-riers, 4 Cruisers Among the Vessels Now in Our Ports

  Generally, check for scholarly journal articles?

  The variety of material cited is adequate (apart from scholarly journal articles), if the presentation of citations was improved, both the ability to verify the editorial work would improve, and the quality of the editorial work would shine through. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fifelfoo. I've extensively reformatted the references (some have yet to be reformatted, while others don't appear to have ISBNs). Some refs have been supplanted by the Times (I guess more explicitly credible where used...). Appreciate the comprehensive assesment of the article's references! SoLando (Talk) 10:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking good! :) Fifelfoo (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Cartagena de Indias

Coordinator note, this review was initiated by Tttom (talk · contribs) at 22:50 UTC on 16 August 2010. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

• in the References, Citation # 41 has a bare url which should be formatted so that the chain is not visiable (you've done this with the others);
• in the Bibliography section, the works without ISBNs should have OCLC numbers. These can be found at [8];
  • I haven't seen these used in articles on WP. Browsing the last few FAs today, not one show an OCLC number.
• in the Bibliography section, the link to "Tobias Smollett" shouldn't be in brackets, it should just be piped as you've done with Fernandez;
  • Done.
• according to the Featured article tools one of your external links is broken: [9];
  • Done.
• Alt text could be added to the images per WP:ALT;
  • not sure what is needed exactly but added some additional text. Tried following the usage in WP:ALT but caption just disappeared. Tttom1 (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• the Advisor script reports that the ISBN for "Harbon, John D..Trafalgar and the Spanish navy, Conway Maritime Press, 2004, ISBN 08700216953, pp.108 - 113." in Citation # 49 might not be correct, can you please investigate? AustralianRupert (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Done.

XavierGreen

• I'm not sure how detailed the information that exists on the subject is, but articles on large battles such quite often have an order of battle section.XavierGreen (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • As the composition of forces changes over the course of the action, those forces particular to that part are given in the section related.Tttom1 (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Woody

It is looking good, much better than the previous incarnations of the article.

• The lead is too small for the size of the article. I would suggest a couple of good-sized paragraphs.
• "Blas de Lezo, a Basque, was an experienced, wily and tenacious Spanish Naval commander, whose previous career was as daring and spectacular as any naval officer of his day." This is all a bit POV and unsupported by sources. Any source for this, is it a quote
  • • Sources given at end of paragraph: Rodgers and Harbon.
• Which language version are we going for? Manoeuvre would seem correct to me? Same with harbor-->harbour etc
  • I use American English spelling, I believe either is correct, but use should be one or the other. In this case, as the primary editor, it should follow American spelling - I suppose.Tttom1 (talk) 05:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• "The expedition was very slow getting started from England. Initially, contrary winds delayed the sailing until most of the shipboard provisions were consumed and a steep increase of sickness[50] occurred among the ship crews, then news of the sailing of the French squadrons and a Spanish squadron caused further delay while the British fleet was reinforced in response." This is too long, can we split it in two?
  • Done.
• It might benefit from a slight copyedit, quite a few sentences don't seem to run well to me.
• Overall though, this is a good article that deals with the issues neutrally. Good work, Woody (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Any reason why there's a picture of Philip V from 1700 in this article? Herodotus1960 (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Good question, the correct King reigns, twice - switching to another image. Done.Tttom1 (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Alton

Hello. I just started Battle of Alton and I'd like to bring it to FA status eventually. I'm not used to writing articles on military history, so any help would be greatly appreciated. I think the weakest area is the lack of illustration: I'm currently waiting on the possible relicensing of some great maps of the area, but the owner seems reluctant. Also, any suggestions as to additional sources would be welcomed.-- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to go through and look at your wikilinks. I've fixed one or two but you need to check each one before you go for FA for disambiguation. For example, one I didn't have time to fix is drakes, which you intend as light artillery pieces but leads to an American bakery.Monstrelet (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. I just reviewed every link in the article. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Just a few minor points from me:

• OCLC numbers might be added to the works in the Bibliography that are too old for ISBNs, they can be found by searching at [10];

Done.

• some of the citations are to pretty broad page ranges, I think at FAC they might ask you to be more specific with the pages from where the information came;

I've improved that a bit.

• some of the citation numbers are not listed consecutively, for instance in the Battle section, "...scaffolding inside the church proper.[6][5]" I think at FAC they link the citations to appear consecutively, e.g. [5][6];

Done.

• in the prose you have "500+" and "100+", I think you should replace these with prose. For instance you might say "More than 500 men were captured..." and "...in addition to the estimated 100 men of Boles' force that were killed...";

Done.

• if it hasn't already been through a copy edit, I suggest having this done prior to nominating it for FA status. There no major glaring issues that I can see, but it always pays to have it done in the long run. The Guild of Copy Editors accept requests, I believe. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the review! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Cryptic C62

Resolved issues

"Parliamentary forces under Sir William Waller" Though I realize that this may be a common phrasing for military history articles, I would want to see either "serving under" or "under the command of" to make it clear that this refers to the chain of command. Done. "on a winter garrison" What is a winter garrison? How is this any different from pre-existing garrison that happens to be serving in the winter? It's not really, except it's less active because of bad weather, (I think). "At dawn on the 13th, Lord Waller approached," Approached what? Also, was it just Lord Waller who approached, or was it also his army? Done. "In the church, Boles was killed along with most of his remaining men." According to the lead, Boles had only the infantry under his command. According to the infobox, the infantry numbered 600, 500 of which were captured. How, then, is it possible that "most of his remaining men" were killed? "Remaining" means remaining at the last stand in the church, not remaining after the cavalry fled. Boles was in charge only of the infantry, so the infantry weren't his remaining men. "Stories boast of Boles, who is said to have killed as many as seven men before falling" This claim doesn't seem compatible with the infobox, which claims that the Parliamentarians lost approximately 10 men in the battle. How can it be that Boles alone killed 7 enemies while the rest of his 600-man army managed to only kill 3? That's what the sources say. Still, I tried to word those statements as conservatively as possible. Some say he only killed 2 or 3, but modern histories, and good ones, seem to have no problem with the number 7. At the same time, I've seen assertions that the Parliamentarians lost no more than "8 or 9", while others than give figures around 10 (perhaps 20 at the most). "Sir Ralph Hopton's first decisive defeat" Who is this? I don't say who Waller is either. Both are obviously commanders of Royalist and Parliamentarian armies, and they're wikilinked names. I don't think there's room to do a good job describing their position, nor is it necessary. "Parliamentary forces serving under Sir William Waller lead a successful surprise attack on a winter garrison of Royalist infantry and cavalry serving under Ludovich Lindsay," It is obvious who these people are because it is stated explicitly. It is obvious who Boles is because his role is als o stated explicitly. All of a sudden the battle is now associated with Ralph Hopton because...? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC) You are correct. Now it's fixed. "by the Red Regiment from Westminster and the Green and Yellow Regiments (from London)." I don't understand why one of the locations is in the body of the sentence but the other is parenthetical. Fixed. "In late September, King Charles gave Ralph Hopton 1580 horse, but only around 2000 conscripted infantry and 500 troops recently returned from Munster," I don't understand why he is said to have had "only" 2000 infantry when this number is clearly larger than the 1580 horse. I would think that "along with" or "as well as" would be a better choice than "but only". Cavalry are better and more expensive than infantry, and the best proportion has significantly more of the latter than the former. "the Parliament of England ordered major-general William Waller to muster for the defence of Hampshire" "muster" is generally used as a transitive verb. When used intransitively, it refers to a group gathering together, not to one person. From the OED: "muster v.: 2b trans. To collect or assemble (esp. soldiers) to be counted, inspected as to condition and equipment, exercised, displayed, enlisted into service, or sent into battle. Also intr.: to call a muster." "muster n.: 2a Chiefly Mil. An act of calling together soldiers, sailors, prisoners, etc.; an assembling of people for inspection, exercises, etc., or an act of counting or enlisting people into (esp. armed) service; a roll-call..." I stand corrected. Still, I think the more common phrasing would be "Waller to muster his forces for the defence of Hampshire" or some variant thereof. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Yes. "had at his disposal one cavalry and one infantry regiment" This is somewhat misleading, as it may be interpreted as meaning one infantry regiment and one individual unit of cavalry. Fixed. "They reached west Alton" If "west Alton" is its own region, the "west" should be capitalized. Otherwise, this should read "They reached the western side of Alton" or some such. Fixed. "A regiment of Waller's infantry plus five companies of Haslerig's and five companies of Kentish Men" I'm not a fan of the informal use of "plus". How about a list: "One regiment of Waller's infantry, five companies of Haslerig's, and five companies of Kentish Men" Good suggestion. "The Green Auxillaries flanked the Royalists" This is the first and only instance of "Green Auxillaries". Is this the same as the previously mentioned Green Regiment, or perhaps some subset thereof? Fixed. "marching through town under the cover of smoke from a thatch house which they had set on fire." It is not clear from the structure of the sentence who this clause refers to: the Green Auxillaries or the Royalists. Fixed. "Eventually, the Parliamentarians caused the Royalists to abandon the south-east part of the wall around the church." "caused" is a bland and ambiguous verb. How about "forced"? Fine. "... so entry was soon managed." Awkward and somewhat ambiguous. How about something like "so the Parliamentarians were quickly able to breach them." Fixed. Quotation: "I am certainly informed there were not above fifteen pieces found in the pocket of Colonel Bolles, who, until he fell himself, did bravely encourage and lead on his soldiers." Is the typo "Bolles" an error in your transcription or is that how it was originally written? If the latter, I suggest adding [sic] afterwards. All of the quotations have weird spelling: they're from a million years ago. I can't add [sic] after every abnormality. Also, the inconsistent spelling of "Boles" is mentioned in a footnote. "Boles did not give up, and he killed a number of enemies before being killed himself." The lead provides more detail than this sentence, which is not desirable. WP:LEAD demands that the lead be a summary of information that is included in the body of the text, not a place to introduce more detailed material. Fixed. "Waller, on the other hand, lost maybe ten men" The use of "maybe" is somewhat unencyclopedic. How about "as few as" or "about"? Yeah. "after having pleaded with the town for aid," The meaning of "town" is somewhat ambiguous here. Does this mean the townspeople, implying that he rode through the streets asking for aid? Or does this mean the town's leaders, implying that he met with them to ask for aid? He's not in Oxford, so he obviously sent a letter. That's nowhere near obvious for me. Why couldn't he have just hopped on his horse and rode over to Oxford to ask for aid? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Fair point. I've commented out the problematic part. I never liked that line anyway, and it's neither on topic nor important. More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't wait! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Those are my final comments. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Great. Thanks, again. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You get has:

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney

• The notes all need references

Done.

• References should come after punctuation couple in the lede at least that do not.

Done.

• In the background section King Charles should be linked.

Done.

• Whats the difference between the but only around 2000 conscripted infantry and 500 troops ? should they be troops ? if not 16 troops of horse later on should be linked.

The 500 were from Munster. I'm not sure I understand the confusion.

So was there 2,500 infantry? whats the difference between the two. Were the 500 volunteers or something else.

There were 2,500 infantry in total: 2000 were conscripted; 500 had already fought in Ireland.

• There is a mixture of dates both the 3 November and on the 27th used. I would suggest using 3 November and 27 November.

Done.

• Lord Crawford sent a missive to Farnham - whats a missive ?

Pretty much a letter. It's a more general term, however, and more appropriate here.

Its linked to Letter (message)

That's fine.

• The march was quick and quiet, owing to the long frost which improved the roadways. If thats what the source says ok, but it did take 14 hours so the quick part is dubious.

Multiple sources say the frost made the march quick. They travelled at least 15 miles as the crow flies (because of their detour), and they took a break. That sounds like a reasonable speed to me.

• Some book in the bibliography are missing publishing locations. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

All done! Thanks for the review. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Unternehmen Paula

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am unsure if it can reach GA status and I'd like some opinions. The article is about a little known aerial operation that took place during the Battle of France. It is ingored by most histories unless specific to the air battle and so sources are very limited. I think I might have done enough to squeeze all the info I can out of the sources. So, those are my reasons.

Thanks, Dapi89 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• You cite "Bond" and "Weal" in your citations section, but no authors by those names appears in the bibliography.

In the Aftermath section your wording is a bit editorial. Instead of "the French knew differently" you might use "Reported French losses suggest something less than total German victory."

Casualties in the fourth line of the Aftermath section is misspelled. In line two of the same section you capitalize ports. Is this proper? There's also a bit of an odd tone in that sentence. If you're going to put 'success' in quotes, it might be wise to attribute it to one of your sources or change the wording to something less editorial.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I've changed the wording/fixed the port + casualties spelling/removed "the French knew differently" - though this is in the source it is still editorial so it goes - removed the last line and changed it to something else. I'll also add the two missing books. Dapi89 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry...found one other thing - In the lead you state that the operation was mishandled by both sides, but I didn't see anything in the main article to support that position. You might want to delete that comment, change it so that it's supported by at least one of you sources, or add some discussion in the narrative portion to provide information backing the statements.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In the Luftwaffe planning section it indicates than at least one KG did not get complete orders, its plans were compromised by use of the Enigma machine, which ULTRA had broken therefore the French knew about the attack. As far as the French were concerned, there is a little bit in the Battle section. Poor staff work ensured that squadrons did not hear the scramble order message via radio from the Eiffel Tower. Quite why, I don't know. Hooton does not provide any more detail than the words I have used. Is it still inappropriate? Dapi89 (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I might suggest that you modify the wording to indicate that "some authorities suggest (or contend, if you want to make it clear that it's an opinion expressed by one or more of your sources) that the operation was mishandled by both sides." That would direct people further down in the article or you could directly cite from there to your sources. Hope that helps! It might also help to clarify any confusion that might be created by "However, the operation failed to achieve the strategic results desired". You could also do away with the leading however in that sentence. Just a thought. Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney

• I have moved the units involved on the German side from the strengths section to their own section.
• In the Luftwaffe plans section you say reported 1,244 aircraft on airfields in and around Paris, including 550—650 single engine aircraft but the inf box records only 120 fighters.
• Are you sue about ULTRA my understanding is at the time they could not read signals that quick and I'm not sure they would have shared any intelligence with the French even after D-Day some Allied commanders knew nothing about it.
• Ok - seen further down All in all, these groups totalled 240 aircraft.[30] Only 120 fighters were made available to counter German attacks. do we know why ?
• This bit does not make sense - Fisser was killed two months later leading KG 51, inadvertently saved his life
• The Aftermath section on over claiming is interesting. Obviously the same happened in the Battle of Britain did the Luftwaffe know they had over claimed victories and if so what did they put on place to solve the problem. Thinking here on RAF gun cameras etc.

Hello Jim.

1. Okay. 2. The 120 figure is the number of fighters the French deliberately committed to countering the attack they knew was coming. I don't know why there was not a full committal. 3. Definitely sure about ULTRA. At least E.R. Hooton is. He does mention it by name. 4. Need to rewrite that part about Fisser. 5. Hooton does not say what measures the Germans took re; over claiming. He doesn't even give me a clue as to whether they found out about how bad the operation was. Dapi89 (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Looks pretty good. Just a couple of style comments from me:

• the bibliography uses inconsistent styles, for instance compare Bond to Chant. Formatting them with the {{cite book}} template would fix this, but it is not necessarily preferred by all editors;
• the year ranges in the titles in the Bibliography should have endashes per WP:DASH;
• the page ranges in the citations should have endashes per WP:DASH. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Will change it. Dapi89 (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

St Nazaire Raid

I have just done a rework of this article. Sadly for such an important event it was only start class and almost unreferenced. The raid is listed as FA on the Polish Wiki, so there's a challenge. As always any suggestions appreciated. I would like someone with a more nautical background to check the naval terms used. Also some opinions on the table in the footnotes. Is it required, if so is there a better way of linking it to the text. That has stumped me.

Thanks in advance. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ranger Steve

I'll try and give this a read tomorrow Jim, but just a quicky I notice from a quick scan of it - St. Nazaire also goes by the title Saint-Nazaire, St Nazaire, and St.Nazaire (no space). Probably best to standardise it! Ranger Steve (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed --Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The 3rd paragraph of the lead states 622 men entered the harbour, but the figures for dead, captured and returned only amount to 612. Lucas Phillips only records 611 as sailing as well. I'd also suggest that if casualties are to be mentioned in the lead, it should be balanced enough to include French and German figures as well. Ranger Steve (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

And speaking of Lucas Phillips, as his book is called The Greatest Raid of All, he'll make a good reference for the statement that the raid is frequently called that (it's un-sourced at present). Ranger Steve (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Casualties now include the German figure and British rectified, there is no accurate figure for French most of my sources just refer to some being killed. The The Greatest Raid of All now referenced in the legacy section. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

As is standard for articles you work on Jim, this is looking really good. My suggestions for further improvements are as follows:

• I'm a bit concerned about the heavy use which has been made of Mountbatten's book - as commander of the raiding forces at the time of the raid he's obviously not a neutral source, and many other sources seem to be available to be used.

I think most Mountbatten refs can be coved from other sources will work on it.

• "The ferocity of the fighting had sunk or imobilised all the small boats, which had been required to transport the Commandos back to England." - is a bit awkwardly phrased

changed wording

• You might want to play around with the order of the paragraphs in the Background section - I'd suggest starting with the material on the town and drydock before moving onto the German battleships

Yes done

• "At the same time headquarters Special Service Brigade, recognised the opportunity the raid would give, providing experience for other units." - also a bit awkward

I had problems with this - reworded

• No possessive apostrophe is needed in 'ML's'

Done

• It's not really accurate to say that Tirpitz "was bottled up for most of the war in a Norwegian fiord" given that the main reason she rarely put to sea was that the Hitler and the German Navy didn't want to risk her loss, and that she acted as a 'fleet in being' which forced the RN and USN to station several battleships in the North Sea when they were needed elsewhere. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Reworded

Thanks for the review will see about Mountbatten. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Cplakidas

Overall I think it is very good. I made some copyedits and added some links, italicized the German terms, etc., but nothing major. The one thing I think is missing to make it excellent is more info on the German reaction during the battle (which would probably entail the use of German sources, if there are any). So far, the story is told mostly from the British perspective. Constantine ✍ 07:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I have just checked the German article [[11]] to see what they had on the raid but its unreferenced so not much help there. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ian Rose

Haven't read every word yet but made a few minor copyedits; generally this looks excellent. I see it's nominated for GA at present; A-Class and even FA are not beyond its scope by any means IMO. From a prose perspective, if going for FAC you might want to standardise the group possessive. There are various instances of headquarters, units, etc, taking "their" but others taking "its" (which is correct, if not always followed in the real world). Examples:

• The Special Operations Executive were approached to see if their agents could destroy the dock gates. They decided that the mission was beyond their capabilities...
• The fifth team also succeeded in completing all its objectives but almost half its men were killed.

If I get a chance I'll go through the article in more detail but, in any case, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Walter Ohmsen

I came across Walter Ohmsen biography this summer while visiting the beaches of Normandy. The article more or less sums up my research on Ohmsen. Please let me know what you think. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Good work so far, just a few minor technical comments from me:

• according to the Featured article tools there are three disambig links that should be fixed: [12];

• done

• alt text could be added to the images per WP:ALT;

• done

• is there a publication date for the Tanne source?

• no, I bought the book at the Crisbecq battery museum. It has neither date nor ISBN number.

• is there an ISBN or an OCLC number for the Tanne source? (you can find OCLC numbers by going to: [13]);
• citations/refs could be added to the information in the notes;
• are there citations/refs that could be added for each of the awards?

• done

• Citation # 10 to Der Spiegel should have an accessdate if it is a web citation.

• done

AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle

I've been maintaining this article from the start and it will make a very good featured article one day. My questions are:

• is it to early to nominate it for Good article status.
• do the references need to be archived (like at webcite.org).
• Is it to early to split off the BAE/Northrop vehicle to its own article.

Marcus Qwertyus 21:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

AirplanePro

Short comment: could you make the lead a little longer? I tagged the article. AirplanePro^Radio_Checklist 05:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney

• In answer to the GA yes the problem is that this is just a concept at the moment and the finial design has not been agreed. The same reply to splitting the article.

Some other points.

• The clarification tags need doing and theres one tag.

• The lead states its a fourth generation combat vehicle. What are the other three generations I have never heard of that term being used for IFV's.

• Gen 1:XM734, a modified version of the M113.
• Gen 2:XM765 Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle another modified version of the M113.
• Gen 3:MICV-70, M2 Bradley
• Gen 4:XM1206 Infantry Carrier Vehicle. Marcus Qwertyus 22:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Are these official designations or OR ? and what about the M75 (APC) and the M59 (APC) which both pre date the M113--Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Link US Army at first use.

• It replaced the canceled XM1206 Infantry Carrier Vehicle. As the vehicle has yet to be ordered is this right ?

• The lede also states "Derivatives of the vehicle based on a common chassis—such as tanks" but tanks are not mentioned in the Role section.

• A lot of the article reads like a sales pitch:

The IFV will be modular and networked and offer improved survivability

The IFV would be operable with the current Battle Command control and communications suite but would gradually use a more revolutionary networked integration system.

providing adaptive access points and connectivity

• The IFV would provide exportable electrical power, and battery charging capability for soldier systems - What systems ?

• Whats a non-civilian environment ?

At the moment I think it asks more questions than it answers, maybe after they pick which model/manafacturer they go with, there may be more to work with. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick note Marcus maybe you can make it clear which programme will replace the Mounted Combat Vehicle though I well understand this is not part of the GCV IFV programme. Also NLOS-C replacement. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Arado E.381

I am nominating this article for peer review because I wish for this article to attain FA status, but would like comments before I go through the process. Wikicopter _{what i do} s + c cup|former 03:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo

You may wish to fix your citations for locations; as an offering, I have done this for you (feel free to revert). In particular: No state locations for international cities, "England" => "United Kingdom" problem, contraction vs no-contraction. 4 ISBNs tested okay. Spotcheck for plagiarism / copyright on the one available online source tested okay I can't find any problems, touch my talk page to allow me to note these facts when you hit FAC. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I did last time. Wikicopter _{what i do} s + c cup|former 16:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sp33dyphil

• I think the placement of "Parasite aircraft were unusual for aviation." at the end of the first para of "Development" is a bid odd; is there a way to merge this into the paragraph?
  • Merged into the second para.
• Italicise "Arado Flugzeugwerke" – foreign word.
  •  Done.
• "External links" should be placed at the very end.
  •  Done.
• "The Mark II was very similar to the Mark I besides having a larger overall size and smaller fins." Can there be an explanation telling the reader about the longer moment arm necessitates a smaller fin?
  • I don't understand what you mean myself :), so I don't think I'm the one to explain.
    • Naturally, a reader would think that, if the a/c is bigger, then the fins should accordingly be enlarged. This is not the case - a longer aircraft only requires a smaller fin; it's to do with aerodynamics, which is not my field of expertise. I recommend Bobrayner as the go-to man. Sp33dyphil ^Vote! 08:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Re-link Walter HWK 109-509A-2 --> Walter HWK 109-509A-2. Same with Walter HWK 109-509B
  •  Done
• Missing period at the end of second para of "Development".
  •  Done
• Add portal, I'm suggesting {{Portal box|Aviation|World War II}}
  • No "See Also" section so added at Notes section. WikiCopter 02:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • That's alright. Sp33dyphil ^Vote!

Farawayman

• Lead:
  • "There were three proposed designs for the plane, each being slightly different from each other." Consider "There were three proposed designs for the plane, each being slightly different from the other."
  • "launched from an Arado Ar 234 carrier aircraft to attack Allied aircraft." Consider "launched from an Arado Ar 234 carrier aircraft to attack Allied bombers."
• Development
  • I think "...placing the pilot in the prone position, which increased the sustainable g-force limit." needs a citation;
  • Consider deleting "...Parasite aircraft were unusual for aviation.[3]" Unless we can explain why they were unusual to the typical "non-aircraft" type reader;
  • Last sentence: "This is because the aircraft was cancelled, due to a lack of funds, mother aircraft Ar 234s and a lack of interest by the Ministry of Aviation" - what was the issue with mother aircraft Ar 234s? Shortage or they did not yet exist?
• Arado E.381/I
  • "The pilot would lie in a prone position in the very cramped cockpit behind a removable 140-millimeter (5.5 in) bullet-resistant glass screen mounted in front of the pilot" - think you can remove the second reference to "the pilot;"
  • "The aircraft's straight wings had a blister for a single MK 108 30 mm (1.2 in) cannon and..." If the wings had "blisters" there would have been two of them, implying two cannon. If there was only one "blister" then is would have been on one wing only or center aligned between the wings. Think this needs explaining.
  • The text related to the different variants reads as if they were actually built - contrary to the text in the design section. Perhaps the text in the variants section must indicate that these were design variations and not actual prototypes which differed from one-another.
• Specifications
  • Is the text "Data from Aircraft of the Luftwaffe 1935–1945: An Illustrated History[6] for the Arado E.381/I" needed? Surely a simple cite will suffice?
• General
  • "External Links" section is duplicated.
  • The "Science, Technology, and National Socialism" source can be referenced on-line here [14], pp103-105
  • Interesting graphic depictions here [15]

Dank

• I fiddled with the lead section again, let me know if that doesn't work for you.
• "All these proposals exploited the Luftwaffe's concept of "gaining a tactical advantage by placing excessive stress on the man in the cockpit".": Why did the Luftwaffe think it gave them an advantage to put excessive stress on their own pilots? Or was the stress on the Allied pilots, and if so, what was the stress?
• "due to a lack of funds, mother aircraft Ar 234s and a lack of interest": nonparallel. - Dank (push to talk) 00:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Third Battle of Seoul

Another challenging project, given that this battle has a million little stories from 7+ countries with no cohesive narrative that connects them all. Because of this, I'm particular concerned on the issue of coverage and weight. I'm submitting this article for peer review in the hope that a team of editors with strong understandings of military histories from Australia, China, North Korea, South Korea, UK and US (maybe Turkey too?) could look at the article with fresh sets of eyes. Jim101 (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

A few minor (style) comments:

• there is some mixing of US and British English spellings, for example "defence" and "defense" in the Actions at the Imjin River and the Hantan River section;
• in the Citations section, the page ranges should have endashes instead of hyphens per WP:DASH;
• in the Citations, I think it is more standard for page ranges to be depicted as "pp." rather than "p." (which would be for single pages only, e.g. "p. 3", but "pp. 3–4";

What about multiple pages? Is it "p. 3, 5" or "pp. 3, 5"?

I think it is pp. in that instance. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• in the References section, the Alexander source is missing an ISBN;

The 1986 edition of Alexander's book does not have an ISBN number. Is there a rule that covers this case? Jim101 (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jim. World cat has the details as thus: ISBN 9780870521355 and OCLC 20994629. The link is here: [16]. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have been looking for ages for the numbers. Jim101 (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• in the References section, some of the ISBNs are hyphenated but other's aren't, these should be consistent (same also for the Further reading section);
• in the References section, the titles should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles. For instance "Korean battle chronology: unit-by-unit United States casualty figures and Medal of Honor citations" should be "Korean Battle Chronology: Unit-by-unit United States Casualty Figures and Medal of Honor Citations" (the title of the work by Ryan also needs tweaking in this regard). AustralianRupert (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I fixed everything pointed out above I believe. Jim101 (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Good work, sorry I can't really comment on the content (not really my area of knowledge). Regards. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Commando raids on the Atlantic wall

I am submitting this article for a peer review. I am hoping to move it to Featured List and any and all advice is welcome. I did struggle with the title Atlantic Wall after considering Western Europe and North West Europe so any more suggestions especially welcome. It would split down into three lists of Commando raids on France, Norway or Channel island with the one each on Belgium and the Netherlands falling by the wayside. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

As always Jim, this is a very solid article. My suggestions for improvements are:

• The commando unit infobox seems unnecessary

Ok removed inf box

• "conducted by the British and Commonwealth forces" - what about the Free French and Norwegians?

 Done

• The background section is unsatisfactory - I'd suggest that this focus on the motivations for the raids and the types of raids conducted rather than provide a short history of how the commandos were raised

changing this to suggestion.

• Does the repeated statements that the purpose of the raids was to "capture prisoner" mean that the commandos only intended to take a single prisoner during these operations?

 Done changed to prisoners

• A column summarising the result of each raid would be useful

 Done

• A column with the number of commandos involved in each raid might also be useful, and would emphasise that most of the operations were small

 Done Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Great work Jim. Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Think there all done --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Citadel of Arbil

Complete rewrite of article that had been completely neglected so far. Want to get it to GA but at the moment especially the Modern period and Architecture sections are more a collection of facts than a well-written, flowing story, so comments are welcome. I pretty much exhausted the sources on the history of this place (unless I dig really, really deep), but I can find more on architecture and layout.Zoeperkoe (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Sorry, I can't really comment on the content, but here are a few very general suggestions. Good work so far, by the way:

• There is one disambig link that should be fixed according to the Featured article tools: [17]

 Done--Zoeperkoe (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• alt text could be added to the images (instructions at WP:ALT), although it is not a requirement for GA, but certainly something that usually gets brought up at Milhist ACR;

 Done--although someone might check the alt captions, as I have no experience in writing them. Zoeperkoe (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• in the lead you have "fifth millennium" but then later you have "2nd millennium" in the Ur III section (these are slightly inconsistent styles that could be tweak to be the same);

 Done--Zoeperkoe (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• in the modern period section you have an abbreviation for metres here: "A 15 m high steel water..." but I think it would be best to spell it out in full as you do this elsewhere (e.g. in the Architecture and layout section);

 Done--Zoeperkoe (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• the values using metres etc. could have converts added to them for those unfamiliar with metres, this can be done by using the {{convert}} template;

 Done--Zoeperkoe (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• ISSNs could be added to the journals in the References section;

 Done--Zoeperkoe (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• an OCLC number could be added to the Naval Intelligence Division source (in this case the number is 1077604, which can be found by going to worldcat.org: [18]).

 Done--Zoeperkoe (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Plassey

I have completely revamped this article - the previous version was a little low on info and references. It's not even B-class. Peer review it please - Cheers!--MT (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

I can't really comment on the content as I have no knowledge of the subject, so I have just a few style suggestions:

• According to the Featured article tools, there are four disambig links that should be fixed: [19];

 Done--MT (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• According to the external link checker, there is one dead external link: [20];

 Done--MT (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• alt text could be added to the images (instructions can be found at WP:ALT);

 Done--MT (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• in the References section the external links could be embedded into the title, using the {{cite book}} template like this (note you don't have to use the template, it can be done manually):

Orme, Robert (1861). A History of the Military Transactions of the British Nation in Indostan from the year MDCCXLV, Vol. II. Pharoah and Co. OCLC 46390406.

 Done--MT (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• in the References and Further reading sections ISBNs could be added to all works. If they are too old to have ISBNS, OCLC numbers can be found for them by going to [21];

 Done--MT (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• values such as miles and feet etc, could have converts added to them by using the {{convert}} template (miles to kilometres, feet to metres etc);

 Done--MT (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• if some more images could be found it would be good to use them to break up some of the large sections of text;

I'm going to need some help on this - I'm not very clear on this "fair use" and other stuff. I used images from Wikimedia as far as possible.--MT (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• sometimes you use a comma for numbers of a thousand or more, such as this "3,000 soldiers " but then at other times you don't, such as this "2000 horsemen".

 Done--MT (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert (talk) 07:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Looks quite good to me, nice work. If you've got any questions about imaging licencing I'm happy to try to help. I'm not an expert, though. User:Moonriddengirl has some expertise in this area, and if you ask her nicely she is very good at helping out with these sorts of questions too. She's very busy though, so probably best to try myself or others on the project first. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

FN P90

Article is very informative and it deserves a Featured article status.

Coercorash^TalkContr. 10:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Skinny87

Although a good article, I don't think it is quite FA status at the moment. Here are my initial 'comments:

• 'The weapon's name is an abbreviation of Project 9.0, which spawned it.' - Being picky, but not quite accurate, as it's the FN P90, not just the P90.
• 'Since 2005, the P90 has also been offered to civilian shooters as the PS90, a semi-automatic sporting version with a lengthened barrel.' - For consistency, as citations are used throughout the rest of the lede, I would put one here as well.
• Do we have anything more in terms of research and development details? Were there any problems with the designs, or elements added or discarded?
• 'The P90 was developed by FN between 1986 and 1990 in conjunction with the 5.7x28mm cartridge' - I would mention that this is for mounting extra furniture, otherwise it isn't clear. Skinny87 (talk)

• • FN is the manufacturer's initials so stating that there would probably create unnecessary detail. The meaning of the 'FN' in 'FN P90' is established in the previous sentence: "The FN P90 is a selective fire personal defense weapon (PDW) designed and manufactured by FN Herstal in Belgium."
  • This sentence in the summary already cites a source, and did when your feedback was posted.
  • Only FN's move from the SS90 cartridge to the SS190 cartridge, and the simultaneous switch from the SS90 magazine to the SS190 magazine.
  • This comment is unclear. ROG5728 (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sumanch

• These two references do not talk anything about this gun. So these are inaccurate.

88% Sumanch (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• • These two references state that the Pakistani Special Service Group (SSG) is a user of the P90. ROG5728 (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ranger Steve

I'm afraid I don't think this is especially close to FA at the moment, but with a bit of work could start to head that way.

• I find the prose to be a little basic and not really of a professional or brilliant standard. There are too many short sentences that should really be merged to create some flowing prose, and frequent instances of mismatched facts in no logical order (eg. "The P90 was developed between 1986 and 1990. A P90 TR variant was introduced in 1999, featuring a triple rail interface system for mounting accessories." from the lead). Some other awkward sentence examples which would need rewording include "When the dial is in the "S" position – weapon safe, when "1" – semi-automatic fire, when "A" – fully automatic fire." and "The weapon's name is an abbreviation of Project 9.0, which spawned it" (what is Project 9.0?). I think the article would benefit from a thorough copy edit by someone who isn't too involved in the subject.

• Although links are good for going to a subject that you don't know much about, I feel there's an over-reliance on them here, and in an FA there should probably be a little more explanation of some of the overly technical features of the gun. For instance, straight blowback, short recoiling, closed bolt in the first para of design. Ideally this complete design should be more clearly explained. Likewise bullpup. The simple explanation of ambidextrous is a good example of the level of explanation that the technical terms would benefit from. Obviously not all tech terms should need explaining (eg. muzzle velocity, semi automatic), but at the moment the article is too technical for someone who has little idea about guns.

• The list of users table currently takes up one whole third of the entire page length and I'm afraid this seems excessive, especially in its current format. Would there be any way to covert this into prose? Or perhaps keep the table format, but convert the different users of each country into a box of prose. I don't personally feel there needs to be "every single user ever" included either. Given that there are perhaps in the region of 80 users listed there (I'm guestimating) I imagine that some of the users are fairly trivial next to units that use it on a regular basis.

• Referencing: There seems to be too much of it. Ten different refs to confirm that Korps Commandotroepen (KCT) use the gun, and eleven for the secret service is waaayyy more than necessary. Two or three is enough.

• Lead: Large numbers of cites in the lead always worry me and here it appears that several facts presented don't seem to be expanded upon or explained in the main body (eg."In 2009, the National Rifle Association added the P90 and PS90 to the NRA Tactical Police Competition standards. The PS90 sporting model is also becoming increasingly popular among civilian shooters.")

• Notability: I have no wish to get into goldeneye or stargate territory, but there doesn't seem to be anything in the article that really describes the weapon's fame. Is there anything that can be added to help highlight its notability? This is quite a famous gun, but the article doesn't seem to suggest it.

• Layout: Its a bit technical in its sections at the moment. I like the sections used in M249 light machine gun, which seem a bit simpler.

Overall, I think the article is a little too complex and not accessible enough for people with little idea about the subject. It would benefit from a fresh pair of eyes and a less technical perspective.

Hope it helps, Ranger Steve (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Indian Air Force

Previous Peer Review (2009)

We made quite a few changes and wanted to hear about other contributers' comments so that we can get it to GA or A status. Sumanch (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

I can see that a lot of effort has been put into this article so far. These are my suggestions for improvements to the article:

• According to the Featured article tools there are two disambig links that should be fixed: [22];

 DoneSumanch (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• the final sentence in the Mission section needs a citation;

Found a citation for assistance during natural disasters. Couldn't find one for assistance to maintain internal security. --Gremaldin (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• in the History section, you have the abbrievation "RAF" (for Royal Air Force), but haven't introduced the abbrievation yet. Thus, I feel here you should replace "RAF" with "Royal Air Force (RAF)";

Didn't see any such use, may be it was fixed. Sumanch (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• there is a mixture of terminology, e.g in the lead you have "World War II" then later in the History section you have "Second World War";

 DoneSumanch (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• the final sentence in the first paragraph of the History section needs a citation ("After the war, they were interned..."
• in the final sentence of the first paragraph of the History section "allies" should be capitalised as it is a proper noun, while "Couter-martialed" shouldn't be as it isn't;

 DoneSumanch (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• in the History section, I think you should break up the paragraph beginning with "The IAF saw significant conflict" - I think you should split it at the end of the sentence ending with "when the UN mission ended";

 Done Sumanch (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• in the History section, this sentence needs a citation: "At the same time, the IAF also started inducting Mach 2 capable Soviet MiG-21 and Sukhoi Su-7 fighters."

 DoneSumanch (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• the last part of the Bases section needs a citation;

 Done --Gremaldin (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• the first paragraph in the Squadrons section needs a citation;

Found a citation for "All fighter squadrons are headed by a Commanding Officer with the rank of Wing Commander." Couldn't find one for "Some Transport squadrons and Helicopter Units are headed by a Commanding Officer with the rank of Group Captain." --Gremaldin (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• the last sentence in the Garud Commando Force section needs a citation;

 Done Unvarifiable. Sumanch (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• in the IAF personnel section this should be fixed "F H MAJOR" - I think this is meant to be a wikilink, can you please fix the capitalisation?

 DoneSumanch (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• the last part of the Officers subsection needs a citation: "The IAF selects candidates for officer training from these applicants. After completion of training, candidate are commissioned as Flying Officers";

 DoneSumanch (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• the Non Combatants Enrolled and civilians section needs a citation;

 Done Sumanch (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• the last sentence in the Airborne Early Warning aircraft section needs a citation;

 Done --Gremaldin (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• the last part of the Transport section needs a citation;

 Done --Gremaldin (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• the last part of the Tanker aircraft section needs a citation;

 Done --Gremaldin (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• the last part of the Training aircraft section needs a citation;

 Done --Gremaldin (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• the Helicopters section needs a citation;

 Done --Gremaldin (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• in the Footnotes section, some of your web citations are just bare urls (e.g. Citation # 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90 - these should be formatted as the others are with the {{cite web}} template.

 Done --Gremaldin (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Good work so far and good luck with improving the article. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sumanch

Need some clarification of this usage policy for images.
Material featured on this site may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged. However, the permission to reproduce this material does not extend to any material on this site, which is explicitly identified as being the copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned. - Indian Air Force - Usage Policy Sumanch (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like the IAF maintains the copyright but the images can be used with a Fair use rationale. In terms of Wikipedia's image policy, this means basically that you need to be certain that you can't find a free (or non copyrighted) image to replace it. If a free image is available (i.e. one that's in the public domain), or it is reasonable that one might exist, then you can't use a copyrighted image with a claim of fair use. That's my take, but I might be wrong. This might help: Wikipedia:Non-free content. Anyone, please correct me if I am wrong. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Kirk

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I couldn't find any other articles about an Air Force which are FA (or A) quality for comparison. The United States Marine Corps is FA, so its probably a better template than the RAF article; in comparison to the structure to the USMC and USAF articles:

• mission section is just a paragraph instead of having multiple subsections

Romanian Land Forces is a GA and it has a similar mission section.Sumanch (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you think that section meets A or FA quality, be my guest and use it, but I certainly don't. Also, Australian Defence Force is another FA article you can look at which has a different structure. Kirk (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Gremaldin (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• history section should have subsections

It used to have one. But this new structure was advised in the previous peer review.Sumanch (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I scanned your review and I didn't notice that anywhere other than a desire for the article to be shorter in this section. Look at the United States Marine Corps article and the History article. The USMC article has some high level subheadings in the History section which summarize mutltiple sections in the USMC History Article. Origins, Partition of India, Summary of conflict 1961-1971 (I don't know what to call this), etc. would make it easier to read. Kirk (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I divided the history section into subsections in my sandbox. I will wait for opinions before applying the changes to the main page. --Gremaldin (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Gremaldin (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• personnel include 'the IAF', which probably isn't needed, and probably should use the same sub-sections as USAF: consider adding training, awards and uniform. The USMC article has uniform in a separate section.

Added a training susection. --Gremaldin (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• My understanding is Junior Commissioned Officer is a Indian Army term; I think the proper term in the IAF is Warrant Officer. Its distinct enough it probably should have its own subsection to explain why the IAF has Warrant officers when the Indian Army has Junior Commissioned Officers.

Junior Commissioned Officer is a rank category. The Warrant officers in the IAF, Subedars in the Army, and Petty Officers in the Navy fall in this category. The category of JCO was created by the british because at that time Indians were not allowed to be an officer. Sumanch (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I know what you are saying, but you need to back that up with a reference and its probably only worthwhile as a footnote. Just looking over the IAF website, I can't find any reference to Junior Comissioned Officers, so I'd remove that subheading on the table with Junior Commissioned Officers and Enlisted. Example: [23] Kirk (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Structure or Organization; seems to me organization is better since that's what the USMC article uses. And why does Aerospace command get its own section?

It is a work in progress. Right now we are open to suggestions. Sumanch (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Made Integrated Space Cell a subsection of the Structure section. --Gremaldin (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• The future section is mostly a bullet list...not sure I recall seeing that in a FA article before. Note both USAF and USMC article have a culture section.

 Done Converted it into prose. --Gremaldin (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• The USMC article doesn't have a very detailed equipment section, i've noticed most air force articles devote a lot of space to detailing each aircraft in use, which probably isn't in line with WP:SUMMARY

 Done Made the "aircraft inventory" section much more concise and comprehensive. --Gremaldin (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• The info box could more stuff in there, but this seems to vary widely between Air Force articles. Maybe add engagements, I would guess the commander section could be more extensive, the personnel section could be more detailed with active, reserve, guard numbers.

No, I think over-corwding the infobox creates distraction. Infobox should contain only the absolutely need to know and nothing more. USMC infobox is a bad example. Sumanch (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why its a bad example, I guess you don't think its an FA article? Also, I'd like to know how many personnel are active vs reserve, but the article doesn't contain that information & it would be nice in the infobox. Kirk (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Added engagements. --Gremaldin (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Added the Vice chief of air staff under the commander section. --Gremaldin (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This is just high level stuff, hope this helps! Kirk (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Operation Postmaster

Operation Postmaster was a small joint operation by the Special Operations Executive and British Commandos. The operation involved a raid on a neutral Spanish port and sailing off in three Italian/German ships. I don't know how far this will progress at the moment but any and all suggestions for improvement are welcome. Thanks to those who have already commented on the article. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is a first-rate article Jim. My comments are mainly nit-picking:

• "Operation Postmaster was a British operation on the neutral Spanish island of Fernando Po" - 'Operation Postmaster was a British operation conducted on the Spanish Island of Fenando Po" perhaps, and then say later in the lead that Spain was neutral - the current wording makes it sound like only the island was neutral territory

Changed wording

• 'operation' is repeated in each of the first three sentences in the lead

Yes now that you mention it -also changed

• What's meant by the SSRF being 'nominally' under SOE command?

That's was my bad spelling it should have been normally - changed

• How large was the SSRF at the time? (which seems relevant given that the article says that all of it was deployed)

Only 55 men - now added

• It probably needs to be noted that Duchessa d'Aosta's cargo manifold was false - unless I'm mixing up my imperial units (always a possibility!) there's no way that she could have carried more than a fraction of that cargo of millions of pounds of bulky goods.

I never added them up will check

• Were any British politicians involved in approving the raid? I'd imagine that a pre-planned raid on a neutral country would need to be approved by higher authorities than civil servants in the Foreign Office.

The only name in the sources is Hugh Dalton when he informed Churchill, it would be OR but I presume Churchill must have been somewhere in the loop. Even though the SSRF was under control of SOE Mountbatten as head of Combined Operations I suspect would also have been involved. But this would be OR.

• Was the raid an actual breach of Spanish neutrality? It seems so, but the article states that it was only "seen as" a breach by the Spanish Government.

Yes according to international law, the ships should have been safe from attack.

• On that topic, did the Spanish government do anything concrete in response to the raid, or was it's response limited to blustering? Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

All I could find in the English sources was the statement by Suner. The Allies were the only source of goods for Spain and there sole source of oil. Also MI6 were paying off the Spanish High Command to stop them going to war on the German side. Which may have had some bearing on their response. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't get any sources right now on this, but in the long-term I intend to get some books on wartime Spain, and Franco, and see if this had any long-term effects. Skinny87 (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

A couple of minor comments;

• there's a bit of whitespace in the Background section due to the placement of the Gulf of Guinea map;
• in the Aftermath section there is a bit of mark up that is not working "{{quote|intolerable attack"
• in the References section there is a Footnotes section but there are no footnotes;
• in the Bibliography section the year ranges should have endashes. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all changed can you check for the white space it always comes up, but I can never see it. I think it must be my monitor. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

All fixed, looks good. I think it is probably just my screen. ;-) Take care. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Midshipman

2009 review here here

I'm submitting this article for a Peer review prior to resubmitting it as a FA candidate. The main FA problem was some copyright concerns with some of the text, which I've fixed. However, I also took the time to expand a lot of the text sections, and reorganized some of the content.

All comments are welcome, however I would like some comments specifically regarding the following sections, which may need some copyediting prior another round of FAC.

• Midshipman#Origins
• Midshipman#Entry
• Midshipman#Social background and uniform
• Midshipman#Royal Navy from 1858

Thanks for your assistance! Kirk (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Simon Harley

Comments It's no reflection on you, Kirk, but the section on the Royal Navy from 1858 is appalling, and I suspect it's the shoddy work of the authors involved.

To wit:

“ The original Royal Naval College closed in 1836, after which the only method for training midshipman in the Royal Navy was aboard ships. The closure precipitated a decline in qualified officers, prompting an 1856 Navy commission to recommend the opening of a school called The Royal Naval College to train officers. The school was officially founded in 1858 in Portsmouth; the wooden hulk HMS Britannia was selected as a training ship, and instruction of cadets started on January 1, 1859.[35] The Britannia was moved to Portland in 1862, and to the present location of the school in Dartmouth in 1863.[36] ”

This is rather irrelevant: from 1840 to 1859 to become a Midshipman, the subject of the article, one had to be 14 years old, have two years' service as a Naval Cadet or three years' other service in the Navy. For detail's sake, instruction in harbour for officer cadets began in the Illustrious in 1857.

“ The normal entry age for officer candidates was 13, and instruction consisted of two years of classroom training, during which time trainees were rated as cadets, followed by a year aboard a special training vessel. Cadets were then rated as midshipmen, and served aboard the fleet another two years.[37] Midshipmen lived in the gunroom, kept watches, and ran the ship's boats.[37] They received instruction in navigation every day.[37] After five total years of training and having reached the age of 19, the midshipmen were eligible to take the examination for lieutenant.[37][38] After passing the examination for lieutenant, midshipmen were commissioned as sub-lieutenants, and were transferred to the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, which opened in 1873 as the 'University of the Navy'.[37] ”

Depending on how well a Naval Cadet did in Britannia assisted his rating as Midshipman. Good studying and behaviour meant one could become gain 12 months sea time and be rated as Midshipman immediately on leaving the training ship. Otherwise, cadets had to be examined once they went to sea.

“ Beginning in 1903, officer training of military and engineering officers was reformed by the Selborne-Fisher scheme.[39] At the same time, a new facility was built at Dartmouth to replace the HMS Britannia, and a new preparatory school was opened at Royal Naval College, Osborne to give cadets a traditional public school education initially consisting of two years at Osborne and two years at Dartmouth as cadets, later four years at Dartmouth, followed by approximately 3 years of sea duty as midshipmen prior to promotion to sub-lieutenant.[37] After World War I, opposition to the scheme led to re-segregating the executive and engineering branches, the Royal Naval Engineering College, Keyham was reopened and Osborne was closed, but single entry was maintained.[37]

During the years at sea, many midshipmen forgot what they had learned as cadets and when they entered Greenwich they were very poor students.[37] Also, while superficially similar to public schools like Eton, the Royal Naval College accepted a higher percentage of applicants, imposed harsher discipline and demanded less academically of its cadets.[40] During this period, naval officer education in the US and other countries took candidates at 18, and trained them in a university setting, while the UK preferred to enter candidates as early as possible and preferred practical skills over academic training.[41] After World War II, officer training was reformed: in 1949 entry age was increased to 16, later in 1955 to 18, and after 1957 midshipmen no longer served in the fleet.

”

The Selborne scheme also included Royal Marines. The "new facility at Dartmouth" had been in preparation since the 1890s, i.e. long before the scheme was even contemplated. No one could possibly say Osborne gave cadets a "traditional public school education"; they lived in glorified huts and among other things their education contained a massive amount of engineering, all before the age of 15. The Royal Naval College, Keyham had already re-opened in 1914. After 1913 there was no such thing as "single entry" as starting that year a considerable number of 18 year olds joined the Royal Navy as "Special Entry" cadets. After 6 months training in a cruiser they went straight to the fleet as Midshipmen.

What this section needs is to explain what the requirements were to become a Midshipman and how those requirements changed. Cut out all the dubious opinions of historians and stick to the bare facts. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 19:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments; the final point was why I wanted this section peer reviewed.

Your first point is good, if there was some kind of reference how you know this information (I can recheck my sources) but I don't remember reading that before.

Any Navy List from the period ought to contain the relevant regulations. It's where my information comes from, anyway.

I try to avoid the hyper-specific details but perhaps midshipmen promotions are more important than I thought; I think I can find the source details about how midshipmen were promoted sooner/later. If you have a credible source, let me know.

Right, the Selborne scheme did include the Royal Marines, but it was almost immediately dropped. Multiple sources talk about single entry being the only thing from the Selborne scheme which was maintained; whatever that meant to the authors in question since there were always a gazillion ways to 'enter'. The Osborne comment is interesting, if you have a source - their parents paid tuition for their kids to study enginneering in huts for 2 years! Kirk (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Marder the scheme lasted, such as it was, three years before the Royal Marines were exempted, although looking through the Parliamentary Papers of the time that seems unlikely. To put Osborne in perspective, the class rooms and mess hall were in the Royal Stables, the Captain lived in the former Osborne estate police station, and ten years later (1914) the Admiralty admitted that most structures had been erected "in the form of temporary structures of the bungalow type." The King wanted rid of the place, and Fisher, desirous of starting the Selborne scheme ashore while Dartmouth was finished and modified, obliged him.

I recall reading somewhere that the RM were dropped after only a single cadet chose the Royal Marines. Kirk (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My sources are:

Numerous parliamentary papers, Navy Lists and The Times newspaper.

Davies, E. L.; Grove, E. J. (1980). The Royal Naval College Dartmouth: Seventy-five years in Pictures. Portsmouth: Gieves & Hawkes Limited. ISBN 0-85997-462-6.

Pack, Captain S.W.C. (1966). Britannia at Dartmouth. London: Alvin Redman.

Partridge, Michael (1999). The Royal Naval College Osborne: A History, 1903–1921. London: Sutton Publishing Limited. ISBN 0-7509-1969-8. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 14:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks! Kirk (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey

I am requesting a peer review of this article. I've been doing improvements for the past few weeks related to a GA review (on hold at the moment) and think this article is getting near A-class level. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

This article is in very good shape, and I agree that it's close to A class. My suggestions for further improvements are:

• The lead image seems to be a curious choice given that its rare for the V-22 to be used by paratroopers, and its intended for troops to disembark from the aircraft after they land (I rather like this image as an alternate)
• "faced considerable dialogue in the Senate" is rather unclear - how did the project talk to the Senate?
• "At the same time, the Bush administration sought the cancellation of the project" - what year was this? The article also doesn't say how the project survived (did the Clinton Administration decide to save it after the 1992 election?)
• In general 'Controversy' sections should be avoided with their content worked into the article's prose
• Were the allegations against Lt. Colonel Odin Lieberman ever proven?
• It seems a bit of an overstatement to say that it "will not be a problem" if the V-22 loses both engines - this is surely only the case if the V-22 is flying near a suitable landing site Nick-D (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'm working on it. I've clarified the Senate, cancellation, and 'autorotation/not a problem' parts. I thought the Lt. Colonel was one of three officers later implicated, but not sure. I know about the criticism/controversy section issue and really dislike them. I've wanted to move that text to more fitting places, but could not get agreement on the talk page in late 2008. I'll have to do more reading on the Clinton administration support before adding anything. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    • The recently published book The Dream Machine: The Untold History of the Notorious V-22 Osprey may be of use (I haven't read it so can't specifically recommend it). Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
      • There's some info in the Norton book I have and 1-2 media sources already used in the page mention Clinton admin supporting it. UPDATE: I added some text of that over the weekend. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

It looks quite good to me. I only have a couple of suggestions:

• in the Flight testing and design changes section, "USS Wasp" - the name of the ship should be in italics;
• in the same sentence as USS Wasp the date range "1991-92" should have an endash per WP:DASH;
• some of the citations to web sites don't have accessdates (Retrieved dates). AustralianRupert (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed most of that. Will work on adding the retrieved dates when making other edits. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Operation Aquatint

Operation Aquatint was a very small commando raid during the Second World War, all involved were killed or captured. I have never done a battle type article before but this one just seemed to need doing. Any and all suggestions for improvement are welcome. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

The article is on a very interesting topic and is in pretty good shape. My suggestions are:

• The article needs a copy edit as there are a number of typos and some of the wording is awkward
• The purpose of the raid is a bit unclear - why was it thought to be worthwhile?

Bit added the raids were a probe of coastal defence ordered by Louis Mountbatten.

• Is any information on the preparations for the raid available? (planning, training, etc)
• How was the figure of 10 commandos chosen? Was this the number that could fit on the MTB, or was it a tactical formation?

Its what the MTB could carry - added to text

• Was the MTB operated by a specialist part of the RN trained in supporting raids?

The MTB and crew were just selected from coastal forces, with no special training or equipment.

• The first paragraph in the 'Mission' section is a bit long and could be split into two paras

sus section added and slit.

• Why was Captain Hayes executed, and were those responsible punished after the war?

He was executed only for being a commando, under the terms of the commando order, and those responsible were never punished - text added.

• At present the article is written from the British perspective, and any further information on the German perspective would be useful (eg, what units were guarding the coast, how did they respond to the raid and what their casualties were, etc)

Being such a small raid I can find nothing from the German side. The only forces listed is the division that had responsibility for the area. The German guard dog was awarded the Iron Cross however.

• Is www.combinedops.com a reliable source?

Probably not changing refs - most covered by Binney.

• Maps and/or photos would be helpful Nick-D (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Skinny87

• Needs punctuation looking at, especially the placement of commas and semi-colons. In the lede alone I found several problems, though I'm unsure how to fix them:

'Their Motor Torpedo Boat which was also engaged by the German shore batteries suffered engine damage and forced to withdraw leaving the commandos behind' - Needs at least one comma, probably two

'At the end of the raid those commandos who had not killed, all became prisoners of war' - I don't think that comma is in the correct place

 Done

• 'Following a request from the Chief of Combined Operations Admiral Louis Mountbatten to probe German coastal defences, No. 62 Commando also known as the Small Scale Raiding Force (SSRF) which was normally under operational control of the Special Operations Executive (SOE), mounted a number of operations in 1942.' - Run-on sentence, needs to be broken up and more commas used.

 Done

• 'The mission was to carry out reconnaissance, collect information about the surrounding area, and take a German guard prisoner.' - The first part of the mission description is redundant, as you have already stated that it was a reconnaissance raid.

 Done

• The first footnote doesn't seem relevant after the first sentence, and I'd trim it down to just the fact that the area was later a sector on Omaha.

 Done

• 'and Andre Desgranges from France' - Did he have a rank, or was he a civilian/resistance fighter?

 Done Free French Forces Petty officer.

• 'The Dieppe raid in August 1942 had changed the German fortification plans, the success of the German defences in repelling the raid reinforced the importance of the Atlantic wall' - German fortification plans where? Along the section of beach in question, or the entire seafront?

 Done French coastline

• 'Germany had now started to reinforce gun emplacements with infantry strong points' - 'Germany' hadn't started the process, the local German authorities had, or Organization Todt or such.

 Done

• 'The mission had previously been attempted over the night of 11/12 September 1942, but had to be cancelled after they arrived off the coast of France.' - 'They' = 'The raiders/raiding party'.

 Done changed to MTB

• 'Moving at a reduced speed to avoid detection and avoid the mine fields' - What minefields?

 Done offshore minefields

• A lot of repetition of 'the commandos' in the second paragraph of 'Battle', would suggest replacing them occassionally with other phrases to break the text up a bit and make it flow more.

 Done

• 'The commandos in the Goatley boat had managed to get about 100 yards (91 m) out to sea when it was located and engaged by three machine gun posts above the beach and a gun emplacement to the West also starting firing towards them with cannons' - De-capitalize 'West', and fix the disambig page to Cannons. What kind of cannons were they - it's a generic phrase at the moment.

 Done they just called cannons in the ref so changed wording to heavier calibre guns

• 'Taken to the German headquarters he was put into a room, with Captain Lord Howard and Desgranges who had also been captured.' - How was Desgranges captured?

That's not covered in all the reference material, in fact he hardly gets a mention other than to say he survived the was and died in 1948.

• 'After 10 minutes it moved back inshore hoping to pick up any survivors, it was again located by the Germans at about 02:30 hours.' - 'but was again located...

 Done

• 'The fate of the Dutchman Hollings has never been established, but the Commonwealth War Graves Commission records that Orr from Poland was killed on 12 April 1945' - First part of this sentence isn't supported by the single cite, and neither really is the second; there must have been more than one Polish 'Orr' in Allied service. This reads like Original Research - I'd suggest removing it unless more reliable sources can be found.

 Done web link moved to his real name which also gives his alias of Orr and service details. Text changed to This was the last time any of the survivors had contact with Hollings or Orr. The fate of the Hollings has never been established, but the Commonwealth War Graves Commission records that Orr was killed on 12 April 1945

Mmm, I'm still unsure as to whether this is OR, given that all has happened is that the web citation title has been changed. I'd like some more opinions on this - suggest taking to WT:MILHIST or the OR talkpage. The reference from the CWGC still doesn't cover anything about Hollings, and you've got an extra 'the' in the sentence now. Skinny87 (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• 'but being a commando he was executed following the issue of the commando order which called for the execution of all commandos upon capture' - Repetition of 'commando' again.

 Done

• Are there any more sources that can be consulted - perhaps the sources used by Australian Rupert to write No. 6 Commando's article? There are a number of books on the Commandos that might concievably cover this raid.

I have looked most books that mention it pass it over in a couple of lines, there are a couple of web sites but they would unfortunately be classed as

Skinny87 (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review its great to get a fresh set of eyes to look it over.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Charles Messenger's book has some info on the survivors of the raid, which if it's okay with you I'll be adding in now. Skinny87 (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay, bits added; not a huge amount, but now we know what happened to Winters and Desgranges. I think the Hollings/Orr bit needs modifying, as the cite doesn't cover Hollings at all, and I'm still somewhat dubious about the Orr citation. Unless you have a specific citation stating that Hollings was never heard from again, I'd suggest removing it entirely and leaving only the Orr sentence. Skinny87 (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, and now we know that Desgranges was captured and then escaped, does that muck up the details in the lede in terms of the number of commandos killed/captured/one unknown? Skinny87 (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry thought I had replied - the lede was changed prior so it still makes sense.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

3rd Bombay European Regiment

I need this article to be peer-reviewed to check its neutrality and style, if it conforms to Wiki-standards. Also, is more info required. This is about all I can get. Most of it's common in all sources I checked....--MT (talk) 05:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney

• Needs more references throughout and the Formation section is unreferenced.
• Also needs a copy edit a lot of the language is stilted.
• creating the army of the East India Company – was this not the Bombay Army or the Presidency armies ?
• Bombay Regiment by 1808 had grown to a strength of 26,500, comprising 6,500 British troops and 20,000 local troops – are you sure this is correct for a regiment ? or is it the Bombay Army as above.
• Indian Mutiny of 1857 – thats what I have always called it by our Indian friends now prefer Indian Rebellion of 1857 mutiny could be a bit POV depending on what side your on.
• The image of Hugh Rose in the Rahatgarh section needs Alt text.
• The first use of C.O. should be Commanding Officer (CO).
• Lt. Col should be Lieutenant Colonel for the first use.
• The 3rd Europeans suffered a toll of 5 wounded. – Is that a typo
• In the Garhakota section link sepoys
• I know what you mean but they did not get R&R at the time I would change it for a more historical term.
• I would change the wording for red and blue uniform worn by troops in England and the world over – some nations used other coloured uniforms.
• There are a lot of POV statements like – inflicted atrocious injuries , brave tactical force , formidable city of Jhansi
• link 24th Bombay Native Infantry and the first use of military ranks on their first use.
• Union Jack should be Union Flag and linked, its also not an English flag.
• Victoria Cross and mentioned in dispatches should be linked.
• The convert template could be used instead of marching for five miles – marching for 5 miles (8.0 km)
• Reference 31 needs the cite web template.

A good start well done --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

• Citations are placed immediately after punctuation with no spaces in between, and no spaces between grouped citations YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Good work so far. Here are my comments:

• Some of the citations seem to be to letters (e.g. Citation # 25 "Cpt Forrest to Lt. Col. Liddell"). I'm not sure that these would be considered to be acceptable per the referencing guidelines. Generally third party sources are preferred (e.g. a book, or website).
• The headings should not be capitalised as they are. For example, "The Seige of Jhansi Resumes" should be "The siege of Jhansi resumes" (note also there is a typo in "seige");
• Citation 18 needs more detail: "Casualty report, Siege of Jhansi (April 16, 1858)" does not provide enough detail for readers to locate this document and check it. Is it available in a book or a website?
• Date format for DDMMYYYY should not have commas in it per WP:MOS (there is an instance where you include commas in the Lohari and Post munity sections;
• As a general rule within the military history project, for a B class rating and article requires at least one citation per paragraph (at the end of the paragraph if the citation covers the whole paragraph), or more if necessary. Without this, the article would probably be considered to be start class even though the content seems good enough for a B class;
• Battle honour could be linked;
• the date formats used in the citations (Month Day, Year) are incosistent with the rest of the article (Day Month Year). — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Skinny87

• The lede is quite good, although I question the use of 'they' to refer to the regiment; I haven't seen that used before, either on wikipedia or in sources. Suggest 'It', 'the regiment' etc.
• Picture for the infobox would be good; for these articles it's traditionally the colours of the regiment or a picture of a major action. The colours of the 109th might be acceptable if none for the Regiment can be found.
• 'Between 1796 and 1798 this army was twice reorganized, becoming a formidable force' - Not sure of this sentence's neutrality. How was it 'formidable'? Can we get a cite for that if it is going to remain?
• 'The Bombay Army by 1808 had grown to a strength of 26,500, comprising 6,500 British troops and 20,000 local troops' - I would start with 'By 1808 the Bombay Army...'
• 'In this early part of the 19th century locally raised cavalry also increased the effectiveness of the Bombay Regiment.' And I would add this on with a semi-colon rather than as a new sentence, and also replace 'this early part' with 'the early...' as it sounds too informal at present.
• 'The officers of the Bombay Army were trained in Addiscombe, Surrey, England or recruited from direct appointment.' - What does 'direct appointment' mean?
• 'In 1853 the East India Company further increased the size of the force and created the third infantry regiment on 15 November 1853.' - What was the second regiment, and when was it formed? I'd also reword to '...and created a third infantry regiment...'
• 'However, the relative peace they acquired was broken by the Indian Rebellion of 1857' - 'Enjoyed' seems a better word than 'acquired' in this context.
• In the 'Rahatgarh' section you use several different names/titles for the regiment - I'd suggest sticking to one, either the full title, a shortened one, or even just 'the regiment'.
• 'On 26 January 1858, the 3rd Bombay Europeans commenced the preparation for the siege by helping with the placement of the artillery in difficult terrain' - This is the first mention of a siege - can we have a few more details to give context?
• 'Following severe bombardment of the fort, on 28 January' - 'Following a severe bombardment...'
• 'They discovered that their 500 strong enemy had escaped, but before doing so had inflicted atrocious injuries on the European women who had been caught up in the siege.' - Not quite sure of the neutrality of 'atrocious injuries' here; not really asking for more detail, but would suggest a more neutral wording.
• I've just realized that 'the enemy' is mentioned several times, but never really specified; who were they? Obviously mutineers, but surely they came in several different groupings? Details are needed.
• 'The 3rd Bombay Europeans charged and drove the enemy out of the thick jungle.[5] This was quickly followed by the 3rd Bombay Europeans occupying the fort at Barodia' - This is rather stilted with the repetition of the regiment's full name; suggest creating a longer sentence and again cutting down on the regiments full name. A generic 'the regiment' would be fine for most cases.
• 'In his report back to England, Sir Hugh Rose singled out the 3rd Bombay Europeans and their C.O. Lt. Col. Liddell for praise.' - 'Co.O' is quite jargony, suggest spelling it out, and Liddell should have been mentioned earlier as the regimental commander.
• '5 men of the 3rd Europeans were injured in the engagement' - I believe the MoS calls for numbers to be spelt out in letters at the start of a sentence.
• 'By 9 February, the 3rd Bombay Europeans were once more heading for action as part of the force to attack Garhakota' - What is Garhorkta, and where is it located?
• 'Once they had pitched camp near the fort, the enemy started a bombardment of round shot and rockets.' - Mixed context, makes it sound like it was enemy camping at the fort.
• 'The rebel sepoys of the 51st and 52nd Bengal regiments advanced in force towards the guns of the horse artillery' - What horse artillery?
• 'This new battle uniform was developed by the Regiment itself to create stone-coloured cotton shirts and trousers' - Repetition of 'new battle uniform', and I doubt it was quite called that; suggest rewording as something like: 'This consisted of stone-coloured cotton shirts and trousers.'
• 'This was possibly the first time any British unit was permitted to wear a khaki uniform' - That'll definitely require a citation.
• 'The experiment was deemed to have worked as the 3rd Bombay European Regiment became known as the "Brassheads" in recognition of their ability to withstand the high temperatures of India' - I'm not sure about this sentence. How does a nickname show they could withstand heat, and more importantly how is the nickname related to the uniform?
• 'At the pass of Mundinpur' - 'The Mundinpar pass'
• 'The 3rd Bombay European Regiment and the Hyderabad Contingent drew the attack' - 'Drew the attack' is rather awkwardly phrased, and I'd suggest detailing the other units in the Brigader earlier on, to give more context with whom the regiment was fighting alongside.
• 'The defences of Jhansi and its fort were reported to look impregnable and the battle plan involved taking the city prior to an attack on the fort.' - This doesn't make sense to me - how can the place look impregnable, and then the plan be to take the city and then the fort?
• 'The enemy too kept up their matchlock and round shot fire' - Reword, they didn't fire matchlocks.
• 'but the logistics of battle were kicking in and the continued availability of ammunition was becoming critical' - Too informally worded, and also awkwardly written.
• 'On 31 March, a force of 20,000 troops of the enemy was reported to be making their way to attack the British and relieve the city' - Again, who were 'the enemy'?
• 'With the capture of Jhansi previously looking imminent, Sir Hugh Rose then concluded that the relieving 20,000 strong force commanded by Tantia Tope combined with the 11,000 still in the city and fort would outnumber his own force. Rose had little option but to now defend his position on two fronts.' - This is just confusing, a mixture of tenses means I can't be sure of what this means. I think this needs to be reworded to something like 'With the capture of Jhansi now being delayed past his previous expectations, and the arrival of the 20,000-strong reinforcement force, Rose had little option but to defend his position on two fronts.' You also need to detaail who Tope is, and give the size of the garrison and reinforcing troops before this.

That's about all I can do at the moment, as it's getting difficult to read. I assume the original writer doesn't have english as a first language. No problems there, but it means the language is stilted and often confusing to the reader, and also quite vague. If you can let me know when these initial points have been addressed, and the entire article gone through for prose, grammar and made less vague in the details I've suggested above, I'd be more than happy to read through the rest. Skinny87 (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Naval battles of the American Civil War

I am looking for suggestions for improving this article to B-class. Wild Wolf (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

To reach B class the article needs to provide, at a minimum, short summaries of the battles as well as some contextual information about the navies involved all supported by references to reliable sources. I'd suggest that the article's focus on battles is too narrow however - I'm amazed to see that Wikipedia doesn't have an Naval history of the American Civil War article, and creating such an article would allow the battles to be placed in the context of the war in general and would allow the blockade (which was by far the largest and most important part of the war at sea) to be better integrated into the article. There are any number of good sources you could draw on for such an article. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Kumioko

In addition to what Nick-D stated this article needs a lot of work even for B class. I would recommend writting this from the perspective of a List and add the battles to a table. I would also add in a couple of images and as Nick stated more references and explanation of the Battles would be key. --Kumioko (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Royal Navy

Previous PR: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Royal Navy/archive 1

This is about the fifth or sixth monthly article most read of the national militaries task force. As a heavily read article, it would be very good to improve it, possibly to A-class status. All comments appreciated. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

I agree that it would be great to get this article up to a high standard, though this will require quite a bit of work. My (brief) comments are:

• The history section is massively over-long. This content should be in the history of the RN article, with just a brief summary here.
• There's a fair amount of repetition
• The article presents an uncritical view of the RN. Important issues like the limitations of the Type 45 design and the difficulty the British Government has been experiencing funding the navy aren't covered.
• Much of the content isn't referenced (though there don't seem to be any glaring inaccuracies I can see) Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

As some further comments

• I was surprised by the brief coverage accorded to the RN's role in providing Britain's nuclear deterrent - this is the force's most controversial role, and arguably its most important.
• It's a bit odd that there's a section on the SBS, but almost no coverage of the Royal Marines, of which the SBS are (at least on paper) part. Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

W. B. Wilson

As a comparison, I looked at the United States Navy article to see how it was organized, and found its article structure preferable because it seems tighter and more focused. Concur with Nick-D's comment that the history section should be cut as there is already an article covering RN history (this complaint applies to the USN article as well, although the USN article does not appear to point to History of the United States Navy. Not sure if it would be practical, but an article section on fleet capabilities with some firm statistics would be welcome (typical ranges of air-launched- and surface-launched-strike weapons, types and ranges of missile defence weapons, typical steaming range for task forces before refuel is required (I assume not all vessels are nuclear-powered), maximum altitude of carrier-operated aircraft and maximum dive capability of attack submarines, etc. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Woody

As you can see from the past peer review I have previously had an attempt at cleaning this page up and I hope I can give you a few pointers as to the current state of the article. From a first run-through I came up with the following:

Major issues

• History section still needs a major trimming, it still goes into far too much detail. My last cull of the history section came up with this version. I think that went a bit far and didn't make the distinction between England and UK Navy but even so, I think the article as it stands needs to find a happy medium.
• Fleet breakdown table probably needs to move elsewhere, maybe the History of the RN article. It doesn't seem appropriate in a section marked the Royal Navy today to be discussing the 60s and then not elaborate on the other factors involved in the figures.
• As Nick says above, it is quite surprising that the nuclear deterrence role of the navy is not elaborated. A little history about Polaris and then the complete move to submarines away from airborne nukes should probably go in the current role section.
• Again following Nick, this article is particularly non-critical. Within the RN today there is no mention of the extreme pressure on the budgets, reduction in ship numbers, mothballing/removal of weapons from ships. The T45 budget over-runs, uncertainty over the carriers should also be included. There are regular pieces from the Times etc that should provide ample references for these. (I also have Lewis Page's book somewhere if you want refs from that)
• The titles and naming section should be merged into other sections, of the royal navy can probably be merged into the command control etc and the of ships should fit into the customs and traditions pretty easily.
• Is the popular culture section really neccessary? Could it not be wiped altogether. An organisation that has been around since the 900s will obviously have many references within popular culture; the question to ask is whether these have had an impact on the Navy itself or truly changed the public's perceptions of it. The answer for the vast majority of that section is no.
• Obvious lack of citations.

More minor/stylistic issues

• As a little stylistic thing, the article needs to trim the number of images and alternate them where they remain. There is far too much sandwiching of text between images and stacking images along the right-hand-side. This will only be relevant when the article settles down though after any trimming/rejigging of sections so best to tackle it later.
• The command section is outdated is it not, Amjad Hussain is now Director (Precision Attack) and Controller of the Navy for example.

There you go for now, hope this helps a bit. Woody (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Long Range Desert Group

I would like to request a peer review of this article. I would like to progress the article up the scale GA, A and FA if possible. At present there is a disagreement between two editors on what should be included (I am one of the editors). MOS and other suggestions welcome ad as always all suggestions welcome. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ian Rose

• Heh, not a promising opening with The Long Range Desert Group (LRDG) was a unit of the British Army during World War II. Who in the words of the commander of the Afrika Korps, Field Marshal Erwin Rommel: "caused us more damage than any other British unit of equal strength. Something like The Long Range Desert Group (LRDG) was a unit of the British Army during World War II. The commander of the Afrika Korps, Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, said that it "caused us more damage than any other British unit of equal strength. would be an improvement methinks.
• Anyway, that's just first glance at the lead, I'm sure it will get better as I look over the rest of it in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Text changed --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• You mention the LRDG being known initially as the Long Range Patrol Unit (LRP) or the Long Range Desert Patrol, which makes it sound like simultaneous alternate names for the same thing, but later on you give the impression they were separate or at least that one preceded the other: In the LRP most of the radio operators were New Zealanders, but the LRDG radio operators were all from the Royal Corps of Signals. This should be made clear one way or t'other.
• Style-wise, combining some of the short-short paras would help. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; the name LRP was used only for a few months; once the unit expanded with volunteers from other countries it bacame the LRDG. Note, too that in the fourth paragraph of the intro there is a statement which reads "After the end of the war in Europe, it was suggested that the LDRG be transferred to the far east..." - although some editors would like the origins of the suggestion to be specified this may be difficult, as it was more likely to have been mooted by more than one individual. Minorhistorian (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If a cited, reliable source says "some suggested that..." or words to the effect, i.e. the source says there was a suggestion but doesn't name the originator(s), then I think it's fair enough to use what would otherwise appear as weasel words (i.e. "it was suggested...") -- citing a reliable source for the speculation is the main thing. In any case, either the speculation needs to be cited and the "(by whom?)" removed, or the entire sentence needs to go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Minorhistorian (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't think that's adequate. What exactly did O'Carroll say about the suggestion to transfer the LRDG to the Far East? Surely there must be some indication as to who made the suggestion - War Office, Fourteenth Army, or others? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC) 09:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Haskew just claims it was from the leaders of the LRDG to the war office text amended. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Just a few comments from me:

• some of the citations have years, but other don't (e.g. # 78 "Pearson, p.39", but # 79 "O'Carroll 2000, pp. 185-189");

Fixed

• the bibliography could be formatted with the {{cite book}} template;

This has been a bone of contention and was starting to get into an edit war with using cite book or not. I tend to agree but unless there is any major objection will leave it as it is for now ?

• some of the ISBNs are hyphenated, but others aren't (e.g. Morgan, Pearson and Shortt aren't);

Fixed

• on my screen there was a bit of whitespace which I've tried to correct by moving the images slightly. Please revert if you don't like how it looks now;

No looks fine

• in the Road watch section, there is a typo here: " 27 vehicle and about 200 men".

Fixed

— AustralianRupert (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

*the bibliography could be formatted with the {{cite book}} template;

This has been discussed at length; AustralianRupert's contention that this could be used is a matter of personal taste and should not affect this review. I have read through the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) and I can find no mention that this template needs to be used; in the latter MOS the section Bibliographies - Books in English states, in part:

"For works created and first published in English, vital information is the title and year of first publication. Provide the subtitle too, unless it is painfully longwinded....These should be supplemented with publication details where helpful. (The standard form is "Place: Publisher, Year.")"

The template does not provide enough of the supplementary information (ie: Subtitle, Place), nor does it follow the format recommended Place, Publisher, Year. Please read the relevant Wikipedia articles. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was just a suggestion. When I wrote it I had not read the talkpage. However, I would like to point out that using the cite book/cite web etc. templates is a style that is preferred within the military history project by many editors who contribute A class articles. Having said that, there are many editors that don't use the template and that is fine also. I have no intention of holding matters of style (unless it is against the MOS) against the article (the rule at A Class Review is and should always be that the style is consistent throughout the article, not that the reviewer likes it or not, so if you take it to ACR I don't see the format being an issue). Finally, just so you have all the facts the cite book template does allow "place", it can be added in by using "|location=" parameter. Subtitle can also be added by placing it in the "|chapter=" "|=title" or "|series=" or "|work=" fields. It just requires some experiementation. For instance: Smith, John (2010). A History of Citation Templates in the 21st Century: Another Idea. Useless Works for Wikipedia series. Canberra, ACT: A Fictional Publishing House. ISBN 9780980379655.. Or Jones, Michael (2010). "How to Use the Cite Book Template". In Smith, John (ed.). A History of Citation Templates in the 21st Century: Another Idea. Useless Works for Wikipedia series. Canberra, ACT: A Fictional Publishing House. pp. 1–2. ISBN 9780980379655. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have tweaked the bibliography section as it needed some spaces between the information and some semi colons in the works that have multiple authors. If you don't like the change, feel free to revert it. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem; it's a bit like my university, where different departments insist on using different formats (eg; Chicago v MLA) for notes and bibliographys; it can be a real pain to work with when doing multiple papers. I generally prefer the Chicago style. Minorhistorian (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton

I'm trying to prep this article for WP:FLC. There are currently no land orders of battle listed at WP:FL; all of the existing ones are naval (thanks to User:Jackyd101's hard work). I'm looking mainly for feedback on content, what sort of content might be missing that would improve it. Other commentary is of course welcome. Thanks for your attention. Magic♪piano 17:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

There's not much I could find to discuss about this. It looks quite good to me.

• check the format that you use for numbers that are greater than 1,000. In some places you don't use a comma e.g. "5422" then later you do e.g. "2,322". These should be consistent;
• the composition titles in the References section should be capitalised per Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Composition titles;
• the images could have alt text added to them;
• according to the Featured article tool there is one disambig link that should be fixed: [24];
• according to the citation error checker tool there are a number of citations that can be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS: i.e, Fischer p. 230, and Dwyer p. 244. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, I've incorporated your observations. Magic♪piano 15:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Reinhard Scheer

A departure (somewhat) from my usual battleship articles, this is the first biography I've attempted. I'd like to get some pointers to help me prepare this article for an eventual ACR and perhaps FAC. I know the article is pretty light on personal stuff, but it just isn't out there, as far as I can tell. Indeed, the Sweetman book says as much in regards to the difficulty in writing a biography of Scheer. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review this article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Simon Harley

I'd have thought attempting to get a hold of Scheer's autobiography would be a must. There certainly seem to be enough copies for sale online; presumably there are some lurking in U.S. libraries.

Weir profile of Scheer isn't very penetrating - he quotes von Weizsäcker's memoirs (and draws a pretty daft conclusion from them) but declines to mention the hearsay account of him rubbishing Scheer's actions in 1936. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 14:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking through Worldcat, and it seems all of the editions are held only in Europe: 1, 2, 3. There's a microfilm at Yale in Connecticut, but that's not feasible for me. There's an edition in French in Michigan, but I don't speak much French so that would be of doubtful use to me. I couldn't find anything on Amazon or Alibris. It seems as though there's no shortage of his book on the war (it's available in Google Books), but not very much on his autobiography.

I did track down this collection of letters from Scheer to his wife, but those are all in Germany and thus unavailable to me. Parsecboy (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

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.

---

Portal:Terrorism

Statistics: Three rotating images in the Intro, 15 Selected articles, all GA-class or FA-class, 10 Selected biographies, all GA-class or FA-class, 20 Selected pictures, 20 sets of 3 DYK hooks, all with free-use images, 20 Selected quotes, all with free-use images, and a Rotating In this month section.

Looking for any feedback/comments prior to WP:FPORTC. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. -- Cirt (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment. It's a well-put-together portal with a clean layout and adequate amount of content. I was particularly interested in the "In this month" feature, and hope that this could be extended in future. I have one major concern with regard to featuring this -- your intro states that there is no clear definition of terrorism, so it's not clear what exactly is in the purview of the portal, and this becomes particularly obvious in the biography section. The inclusion of, for example, Idi Armin was unclear to me under the definition commonly used within the UK (which would exclude government actions), and perhaps needs to be more clearly justified within the blurb. I'm not sure including military people involved in the "war on terror" such as Michael Patrick Murphy is sensible. Also the blurb for George W Bush should focus on his views/actions regarding terrorism.

• My other comments are minor. Some Selected Article blurbs need to be edited to be closer to the average length -- eg R v Thomas, The CIA and September 11, & Real IRA are very short, World Trade Center is rather long. Also big variation in the Selected Biographies & Pictures. Probably because of this, the column balance seems way off for many selections (much longer on the right). The blurbs could in several cases do with a copy edit.

• The import from Wikinews doesn't seem to be picking up very much -- it might be better to add items by hand? Or delete altogether if this can't be maintained.

• The instructions need personalising to this portal -- in at least one place they refer to "Buddhism justice" (DYKs). Also you don't have instructions for suggestions for "In this month".

• The layout might perhaps be improved by reducing the number of 2-col boxes at the end.

Hope this is of use to you in improving this portal! Espresso Addict (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to Espresso Addict

• I generally like to keep the text as is, from the WP:LEAD that it was imported from. Otherwise, it could be seen as arbitrarily selective text choice on the part of the editor, as opposed to the stable lede version from the article itself. Therefore, if changes should be made, they should be done, at the lede of the article itself, Terrorism.
• The biographies selected are done not for implication of anything at all, merely due to relevance to or within the topic, broadly defined. This would of course include those both involved in instigating terrorism, fighting against terror, law enforcement, military, etc.
• Okay, might be best to remove the Wikinews section, will think about that suggestion some more or perhaps find other ways to improve it.
• I will work on fixing the instructions, thanks for the recommendation.

-- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"Otherwise, it could be seen as arbitrarily selective text choice on the part of the editor, as opposed to the stable lede version from the article itself." That's interesting. I've always written the blurb essentially from scratch to match the needs of the portal, based on the whole of the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, I specifically avoid that type of construction. I always use the WP:LEAD text of the article itself. If the article is not adequate of a satisfactory level of quality, I just don't use that article in that portal. This makes things much easier - for example: it completely avoids any disputes or conflict over what is appropriate blurb text, because those debates should be on the talk page of the article, and not get shifted into two places and be both the purview of the portal talk page and article talk page simultaneously. Hope that makes things clear. :) -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Clear certainly, but I strongly disagree. However this isn't the forum for discussing it. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - Yeah, that would best be a discussion for another time and place. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

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

List of X-planes

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I'm looking to bring this list to FL status, and would like feedback on what needs improving to reach it. (For the record on one issue I'm aware of: there's no image of the X-16 because the two photographs on Commons of it are both listed for deletion). Anyway, any and all help and suggestions would be appreciated!

Thanks, The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 14:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett

• No reason that a lack of an image would prevent FL status.
• Technically I think page numbers would be useful for all the references
• It could use citation templates for the references GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks. I think I've got page numbers in. I'm not sure about the citation comment mention - everything in 'Bibliography' currently uses either cite-book or cite-web? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton

Brianboulton comments: A well-prepared and comprehensive-looking list. The lead could be developed more, to give a better sense of 60-plus years of history, and there are numerous prose issues requiring attention.

• Prose points in lead
  • "testing of new technologies" → "testing new technologies"
  • "Some X-planes have been highly publicised and record-breaking programs..." Doesn't really work. The two things - "highly publicised" and "record-breaking" - don't go naturally together, and planes are not in themselves "programs". The word "highly occurs again, later in the sentence. Suggest rephrase and simplify the sentence thus: "Some X-planes programs have been well publicised, while others, such as the X-16, have been developed secretly."
  • "well known" in this context does not have a hyphen. Suggest: "...became well known in 1947 as the first plane to break the sound barrier.
  • "yielded important research results" - is it possible to mention briefly the fields to which these results related?
  • "...only the North American X-15 rocket plane of the early 1960s achieved comparable fame." Comparable to what?
  • "Most X-planes are not expected to ever go into full-scale production, and usually only a few are produced." The word "ever" is superfluous. In fact, the second part of the sentence is basically repeating what's been said in the first part, and can be removed.
  • "One exception to the rule was the Lockheed Martin X-35, which competed against the Boeing X-32 for selection as Joint Strike Fighter and production as the F-35." Remove the cliché "to the rule", and clarify the ending, thus: "One exception was the Lockheed Martin X-35, which competed against the Boeing X-32 for selection as Joint Strike Fighter, and entered production as the F-35."
  • NACA and NASA should be fully spelt out on first mention, e.g. "National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA)" Suggest you begin the sentence "Most X-planes..."
  • Reposition "however", thus: "However, not all US experimental aircraft have been designated in the X-plane series;..."
• List
  • General point: some of the notes are too cryptic and/or technical in nature to make much sense to the general reader.
  • Link Mach 3
  • Link testbed (first mention)
  • X14 - repetition of the words "Vectored thrust" in notes

Brianboulton (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Much thanks! I'll get to work fixing those things. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 14:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ian Rose

What a good idea for a high-quality list! Looks thoroughly cited, and of course well illustrated. Comments:

• Second Brian's recommendation to expand the lead
• Aside from Brian's prose comments, another suggestion I have for improving The first of the X-planes, the Bell X-1, became well known as, in 1947, it was the first aircraft to break the sound barrier in level flight. (bit clunky all round) is The first of the X-planes, the Bell X-1, became well known as the first aircraft to break the sound barrier in level flight, on 14 October 1947.
• You don't need to repeat the links for manufacturers and so on after the first instance in the table.
• You don't need to repeat the links in the lead and table with ones in See Also, e.g. Skunk Works (there may be others).

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well, the multiple links remain from the original table. I'll see about lead expansion and delinking soon. Thanks for the feedback! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

British Commandos

I have just reworked the article getting rid of the un-cited content. I believe it is now B Class and I am looking to advance the article up the scale. One concern I have will be the eventual size. I believe there could be two articles here British Commandos the present article up to the operations section and then another article British Commando operations of the Second World War or a similar title. My reasoning is that some of the smaller Commando operations have never been comprehensively covered or published at all in reliable publications so the article in its present form will always be lacking something. Any suggestions or thoughts on this or any other suggestions to improve the article always welcome. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Its looking pretty good at the moment. I made a few tweaks, but I'd suggest seeing if someone would like to give it a bit of a copy edit before taking it to ACR, though as I might have missed something. These are my comments/suggestions:

• I agree that there is a need to deal with the Second World War separately as you mention above;
• On my screen there is a massive (about an A4 size) amount of whitespace in the Commando units section;
• The last part of the second paragraph of the Commando training section needs a citation (after RTU);
• In the Commando training section, I suggest putting a {{convert}} on "eight mile";
• Citations # 52 and 53 appear to be to the same source;
• In regards to those Messenger citations, I think they actually relate to a different book than the one you have listed. In the bibliography you only have one Messenger book (the ME Commandos), however, the citations to Messenger relate to the Commando Order and a raid in Norway, which I think was actually covered in Messenger, Charles (1991). The Last Prussian: A Biography of Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt, 1875–1953. Brassey's. ISBN 9780080367071.
• The Featured article tools shows a number of dab links that need fixing: [25];
• Are you planning to talk about operations in 1944 and 1945?
• I'd suggest not including the text of the Commando Order in this article and moving it to the article on the subject itself. You could then briefly mention it and its affects in this article. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply - Good spot on Messenger had me wondering how on earth you spotted that, then I remembered where I had got it from.

I don't have the large white space but there was an image there which I have moved. Has that helped?

RTU'd ref added

8 mile converted

ref name added for 52/53

I had started 44 and 45 but was also working on a more comprehensive operations section which was getting huge byte size. That's what mde me ask the question about splitting the article. Will see what the majority thinks about it.

Will work on dabs

Thanks once again for the review. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Whitespace gone. Cheers. Looks good. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

Hi Jim, I've been meaning to comment on this article for the last few weeks but have been a bit busy. I think that the article is in pretty good shape, and have the following suggestions:

• The article seems to only cover British Commandos of World War II, and not the post-war RM commandos

Yes I added a top note to that effect, my reasoning was it could then have a natural ending in 1946. The post war commandos are I believe well enough covered by the Royal Marines and 3 Commando Brigade articles.

• The number of battle honours in the infobox is excessive as it makes the infobox too big - I'd suggest spliting this out into a separate article

They are now a separate section.

• How did the commandos differ from the independent companies? Were they really a 'new' concept?

The independent companies were formed from volunteers from the TA in April 1940, five companies served in the Norwegian campaign. They were then used as the basis for the Special Service Battalions/Commandos

• The choice of photos is excellent

Thank you

• The article should discuss the influence the Commandos had on other militaries - the US Army Rangers and USMC Raiders were heavily influenced by the commandos and Australia converted its independent companies into commando regiments (though their role differed somewhat from the that of the British units').

New Legacy section covers their influence on other military formations.

• It would be interesting for the article to discuss why the Army disbanded all its commando battalions at the end of the war - was it thought that the paras and RM commandos could fill this role adequetly? Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked for this and it seems that as they were created for hostilities only and not formed as a Corps or regiment in their own right and still remained on the regimental roll for pay etc, they were deemed surplus to requirements like the Special Air Service and the RM was a big enough peace time force to fill the role.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

List of battlecruisers of Russia

This is my first list although I've modeled it on Parsec's lists of German BBs and BCs. As this will eventually be going to ACR and FLC I'm most interested in things that will help me through those reviews. I'm also concerned about flow and appropriate focus; I found it odd to try and summarize the article for the main body and then to summarize the first summary for the lead so I'm not sure how successful I was. And, as usual, please point out any issues with prose so I can fix them myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett

Trim the summaries (aggressively). There's far too much reading before you get to the lists of ships. If the lede for the Borodino class article is only a paragraph why does this article need four paragraphs? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Parsecboy

One thing for the moment: the fair use images need to have non-free use rationales added for this list. Parsecboy (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

They have them already. I'm not sure I understand what you mean "for this list" Does every article that uses a fair use image need a separate rationale?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep -MBK₀₀₄ 23:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What a waste of time. Once it's fair use for one, it should be fair use for all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I know, I personally think copyright laws are far too restrictive (seriously, if I created something, I couldn't give a damn what people do with it after I died, but for some reason it would still be protected for 70 years, which incidentally seems a very random length of time). Parsecboy (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll get around to adding the ludicrous extra rationales sometime; I've not been in a hurry as Kaga's been stuck in limbo for so long and nobody's done much with Princess Royal yet so there's no room for me to put it up for an ACR yet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed

Is there a reason why the Kirov class are not included? The "Key" table is probably unnecessary imho. Also, since most of the details for each of the designs are the same, would it not be better to put the tables on the right side of the section for each class, using the standard vertical infobox design? The information on the date of scrapping etc could be summarised at the bottom. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be one very tall list, requiring multiple page downs to view. The Soviets didn't call the Kirovs battlecruiser, but something like large missile ship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

On the "Key" table, it was suggested when I took List of battlecruisers of Germany through FLC, which was the model for this list. While the things in the key are obvious to people like us, there are many people who would not understand what "laid down" exactly means. Parsecboy (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Günther Blumentritt

I am the original creator of this article. I have brought it to B-class, and after continuing to edit it I believe it is within striking distance of GA or A-class. I would like some additional feedback and constructive criticism to get me there. This is my first article, so I feel I need extra guidance.

Also, I would like to appologize in advance for the state of the edit history. As I said, this is my first article, and I have recieved several suggestions already about keeping down the number of edits. Lesson learned.Revcasy (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• References comments - for your first article, this isn't so bad. Don't worry about the number of edits; I had something like 675+ to my first.
  • I know that you included the years for Hart becuase you have two different books, but would you mind adding years for the other book refs? It looks odd to have years for some but not all.
    • Added years to all citations. Revcasy (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Check your citation styles; you vary between using commas and p. vs pg., among some other things. I'll fix this for you if you don't understand what I mean. :)
    • Fixed citation styles I think, unless there is something I am just not seeing.Revcasy (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • What is "MT - G.S. & OKW Affidavit No. 610. (June 24, 1946) - Gen Blumentritt, Columbia Law Library" referring to? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • It is an affidavit in the collection of the Columbia Law Library taken by the International Military Tribunal for the Nuremberg Trials. I was not sure how to cite it so I just included all the information I had about it.Revcasy (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Just a few comments from me:

• I concur with ed17's comments about the years for the citations and the p. v. pg. These should be consistent.
  • Fixed.Revcasy (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• Regarding the Affidavit, perhaps it is available as a link somewhere on the web that you could include so it can be verified?
  • Added external link in References section Revcasy (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• This might be stating the obvious, but an image of the subject himself would greatly improve the article. Currently you have an image of the subject's commander, von Rundstedt, but no image of the subject. If one were available, I'd suggest adding it to the infobox at about 250px;
  • Added portrait to infobox. Surprisingly difficult to find one without copyright issues.Revcasy (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Section headers shouldn't be completely capitalised unless proper nouns. For example it should be "German invasions"; "Combat command and German surrender"; etc
  • Fixed. Revcasy (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• The Early life section seems to be more of a Early and personal life section. I'd suggest removing the military career information from it and making it a stand alone Personal life section. You could then deal with the Early military career information in a seperate section, providing some more details about what Blumentritt did during World War I;
  • This is going to take some leg-work. References are a bit thin. I will see what I can do.Revcasy (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Greatly expanded personal life and early military career. Revcasy (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• I can't remember where it is stated, but I don't think it is MOS compliant to include an inline citation within a heading as has been done with the Awards section;
  • Fixed.Revcasy (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• I suggest converting the external link next to Curd Jurgens in the After the war section to a proper in line citation.
  • Can you give me a specific example of an article where this was done so I can see what you mean and how to do it? WP:Cite states "Because of the difficulties in associating them with their appropriate full citations, the use of embedded links for inline citations is not recommended as a method of best practice and is not found in featured articles. It is easily converted to a shortened footnote or parenthetical reference." Perhaps I should simply use footnote style for this link? Revcasy (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I worked something up. Don't know how I feel about it. What do you think? Revcasy (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, that looks good to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• According to the Featured article tools there are three dab links that need fixing: [26].— AustralianRupert (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed.Revcasy (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the great feedback. Very useful! Revcasy (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

MisterBee1966

• check the date format please. I believe it should be DD MM YYYY and not MM DD, YYYY on military history articles
  • Corrected Revcasy (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Explain what OB West is by putting the abbreviated form behind "commander of German forces in the west".
  • Fixed. Also did the same for OKH.Revcasy (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Add a military succession box for all the major command positions held by Blumentritt
  • Done. Wow, thanks for this one. I thought it would be a pain, and it was, but it helped me out a lot actually. =) Revcasy (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Loverich is now part of Baesweiler which you may want to link. Or is it Lövenich near Cologne?
  • Corrected. Revcasy (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if you use Holland ambiguously. Holland the western region of the Netherlands. Netherlands may be a better choice
  • Done. Revcasy (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• You could also link some external websites such as http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERblumentritt.htm or http://www.ww2awards.com/person/2314
  • Done. Revcasy (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• The German wiki article has a summary for dates of rank which you may want to add too
  • Done. Revcasy (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Nothing in the article talks about the Oak Leaves to his Knight's Cross which he received in 1945. Maybe add a sentence or two here.
  • Added mention of Oak Leaves in appropriate place. Revcasy (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ian Rose

Great to see an article on this general receiving someone's attention, well done for that alone Revcasy...! In addition to what's been said above:

• Personal life and Awards section headers still have capitals that aren't required under MOS.
  • Corrected. I am a confirmed over-capitalize-r. Revcasy (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Since there's only one entry and it's mentioned under the After the war section, I'd drop the Filmography section.
  • Dropped Revcasy (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Related to above, in After the war, the film title needs to be italicised per MOS (and you can lose the editorialising about the brevity of Curt Jurgens' screentime -- many actors appear only briefly in such all-star vehicles).
  • Removed parenthetical comment. Italicized title. Revcasy (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• If you want to take to A/FA, I think we need more info on his post-war life and career. What you have here satisfies the detail requirements for GA level but not IMO anything higher at this stage. If you have little more on his life itself, you could perhaps add info re. the books he wrote, which also adds to what you're telling us about him (then you could lose the bullet list, which never looks pretty in a prose section).
  • Definitely want to re-write After the war section. Ideally would like it to be extensive. He corresponded with and gave interviews to several historians, and is cited by many more, so he has subtly shaped the received narrative of the war as written during the cold war and post-cold war. His experiences in Barbarossa also influenced American military doctrine re: the Soviets during the cold war. He was "interviewed" extensively by the OSS and other military intelligence while a POW (predictably more concerned with their new Soviet rivals than the war crimes perpetrated by the Nazi regime). Unfortunately there seems to be no acknowledgment of any of this in the sources. His role in German re-armament was also large and influential. I will see what I can do without veering into WP:NOR Revcasy (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
    • That would be good. For instance, as it is, we find him incarcerated by the Allies after the war and then suddenly we're into his career in the 1950s, with no discussion of investigations, release, etc. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• The Awards section looks too fussy with a list of awards, a box for promotions, and the image of the Iron Cross. If we must have lists of awards and promotions (I don't like them at the best of times and think each one should simply be worked into the body of the article chronologically, but my opinion on this is not the only one) then they should be in similar format. We could certainly afford to lose the medal image from here, perhaps it could justify itself at the appropriate spot in the main body.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Moved the Iron Cross pic. Still trying to figure out how to format the lists so that they look the way I want. Revcasy (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay, just another thing on images... I note the fair-use rationale for the colour pic in the infobox. That's fine I think but if there is a free or public domain black-and-white image, that should be used instead if you want to take it to FA eventually, where policing of image use is stricter than GA or A-Class. If you can't locate a black-and-white portrait that's free or PD, that's fine, stay with what you have. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No. 10 (Inter-Allied) Commando

This is a new article on an unusual Second World War formation. It was the largest commando in the British Army but never fought together as a unit, it men being used is small numbers attached to other formations. Its No.3 Troop could probably deserve its own article but most of its activities are still secret or have never been told. As ever any suggestions to improve the article would be appreciated. I do have a number of books ordered from the library which may have some further details. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

A few comments for you to do with as you want (mainly just style issues, unfortunately):

• instead of including the list of Troops in the infobox in the Size field, I'd suggest including the number of men for the size, and making a new section in the article called "Structure" which could provide a detailed OOB;
• suggest renaming the History section to Background;
• suggest reducing the size of the recognition badge in the infobox as it kind of overly dominates the article (see for instance No. 3 Commando);
• the second sentence in the lead would probably sound better if it were combined with the third;
• there is a mixture of capitalisation of the word "commando" in the lead;
• an image at the top of the infobox would look good IMO;
• suggest wikilinking "troop" in the History section;
• there is a bit of whitespace in the Formation section on my screen due to the placement of the first image of the Polish Troop;
• why was the arrival of the Dutch troop first "confusing"?
• this sentence in the Operations section doesn't quite seem right: "While men from the French No. 1 Troop were attached to No.3 and No. 4 Commando to act as interpreters gather information and persuade Frenchmen to return with them to England to enlist in the Free French forces";
• in the 1943 subsection could a couple of the one sentence paragraphs be combined?
• a number of sentences need more commas, for example this one: "These raids under the code names of Hardtack and Tarbrush were for beach reconnaissance the men bringing back photographs and examples of mines and obstacles that had been laid";
• wikilink George Lane on first mention as that article exists;
• wikilink the commando order (which should also be capitalised as it is a proper noun);
• suggest avoiding terms like "unfortunately" and "enemy" as they convey a point of view (example in 1944 subsection);
• this sentence in the 1944 subsection doesn't seem right: "Corporal Peter Masters No. 3 Troop was attached to No. 6 Commando was ordered to walk down the main street of what seemed a deserted village to draw fire and identify where the Germans were hiding";
• in the 1944 section I think "allies" should be capitalised;
• in the 1944 section you capitalise " Assault on Walcheren " but this doesn't seem correct to me. I suggest decaps and wikilinking it;
• there are a number of single sentence paragraphs, which I feel should be combined to make multiple sentence paragraphs (e.g. first paragraph of 1945 section);
• in the 1945, I suggest wikilinking Sweden;
• in the 1945 you capitalise "Liberation of Norway"; I suggest uncaps and wikilink;
• in the Legacy section I think the word "on" is missing from this sentence: "After the Second World War No. 10 (Inter-Allied) Commando was disbanded 4 September 1945" (I feel it should be inserted in from from 4 September);
• in the Legacy section wikilink "Royal Marines";
• in the Legacy section "western" (as in nations) should be capitalised as it is a proper noun;
• in the Legacy section, this is not a complete sentence: "The Dutch Troop the Korps Commandotroepen,[46] and the Belgian Troop the Paracommando Brigade". (It is missing a predicate).
• citation # 10 is not correctly capitalised IMO: it should be fully capitalised, thusly: "The Real Inglorious Basterds";
• citations # 35 and 36 should be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS as you consolidate others (van der Bijl, p.49 );
• the date ranges in the References section should have endashes, I believe;
• the following citations could be consolidated: van der Bijl, p. 6; 25 and 49 according to the citation checker tool.

Good work so far. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a through peer review most of points corrected. I have been looking for a suitable image for the inf box. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, well done. I'll keep my eyes peeled for any appropriate images and let you know if I find anything. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Soltau

Some independent input on how to improve this article - content, style, historical terminology, etc - would be welcome. It is currently nominated for two DYKs. In particular claims that it was the last knight's battle [in Germany?] and last medieval feud. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Looks good in my opinion, although I don't have any specific content knowledge unfortunately. I made a couple of minor WP:MOS edits to the article. Here are my suggestions (not much, I'm afraid, but it is a start at least):

• in the Forces section "six metres long" could be converted with a {{convert}} template;
• the Notes are slightly inconsistent: although using WP:CITESHORT, you have included the author's initials or first name as well on # 1, 6 and 11, but not on 7, 8, 9, 10 or 12. I think short citations should only have author, year and page number;
• the Sources could be sorted alphabetically;
• the Sources could be formatted with {{cite book}} to standardise them per most other articles within the Military History project;
• the article is currently assessed as a Start class article. In my opinion it is probably a B class, although I can't really assess the content. I suggest listing it at WP:MHA and getting a B class review done on it, as it might be selling itself short.

Anyway, that is it from me. Good work so far. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Monstrelet

Overall a good article, which I'm glad I read. Personally, I think it could do with some tightening up on the "possibly", "probably" front - I know from experience the difficulty of writing a battle description from incomplete and/or contradictory sources - you want to qualify everything - but it can seem a bit unencyclopaedic. Some of the statements may need a little more referencing e.g. that wounded were many times more than dead in this sort of a battle - true enough but might be referenced. One area of fact you might look at is the nature of the cavalry - were all the cavalry "knights in armour" as said in the info box? From my limited understanding of German armies at this time, I'd suggest there could be lighter cavalry involved and possibly early reiters. I could be wrong but it would be worth a check. Finally, I'm not sure on the Questions section. Could these questions be better integrated into the text? Hope these are useful comments - overall I think it's close to B class but I think a bit of attention to style and structure is needed to guarantee it. But on a positive finish - good article and personal thanks for adding to my knowledge.Monstrelet (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hchc2009

Similarly, a interesting article. As a minor point, there are a number of references to Felleckner, S. (2009), but no page numbers are given for where the particular fact appears in it; similarly the reference to Stanelle, U. (1982). Particularly with the longer chapters or books, I personally find that having the page number including in the citation can be really handy when looking back for a particular fact. As an equally minor point, I'd be inclined to tweak the name of the "question marks" section, as it didn't sound very "encyclopedia"-ish: "Unanswered questions", or "Remaining issues" perhaps? Hchc2009 (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Magicpiano

An interesting read; I don't find the conditional qualifications overly burdensome. It is lacking in background, though; I don't get a good sense of:

• the geopolitical landscape (my target for this sort of explanation is a 12-year-old with access to a modern atlas, but otherwise unfamiliar with the area or its history)
• reasons for the larger conflict
• where this event takes place in the larger conflict
• why the two forces got to the place where they eventually met

You cover the political consequences reasonably well, although the lack of political background makes it hard to understand. You're missing military consequences; where did the victorious army go? the surviving losers? Did they meet again?

I would put the Questions section in a separate level 2 heading after the Aftermath, in which you can discuss the historiography (what is known, what appears not to be known, etc) of the event.

-- Magic♪piano 14:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Special Air Service

Any article about special forces will be hard to find verifiable/reliable sources so this will never be an FA article. However I think it could be A Class but needs some outside thoughts. I have cut down all the action man and boys own hero stuff and the article has been stable for some time now. As ever any comments appreciated --Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

This article is in reasonable shape. My comments are as follows:

• It needs a bit of a copy edit - I spotted some typos and missing punctuation
• The statement that 'Following the reformation of the Special Air Service, other countries in the commonwealth also recognised a need for a Special Forces type unit' is a bit simplistic - the decision to form the Australian SAS Company was inspired by the success of Australian special forces in World War II and the Army's experiences in Korea as well as the success of the British SAS in Malaya. This section should also discuss the non-Commonwealth SF units which were inspired by the British SAS.
• The SAS' Cold War role had war broken out in Europe should be discussed
• The statement that 'The Ministry of Defence does not comment on special forces matters, therefore little verifiable information exists in the public domain' isn't supported by the citation given and I don't think that it's correct. A number of good-quality books on the SAS or covering their operations have been written and these are reliable sources of information, including on sensitive topics. For instance, the official history of the Falklands War discussed SAS operations on the mainland of Argentina during the Falklands War. The Department of Defence has also cooperated with authors of works on the SAS - I'm currently reading Mark Urban's Task Force Black and in the preface he states that the DoD allowed him to interview serving SAS soldiers (with what appear to have been pretty light restrictions) and read through the book before it was published to correct factual errors and remove material which could jeopardise ongoing operations (which apparently lead them to try to prevent the book from being published).
• The article doesn't really explain what the the SAS' current role is. Nick-D (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. SASR detail changed slightly and non commonwealth units added. MOD statement qualified and two better refs added. Have not read TASK FORCE BLACK yet does it have and good material ?. I have also been working on the History of the Special Air Service article which of course covers operations in more detail. Its a balancing act to judge how much to add to a history summery. Working though the other points. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Task Force Black provides surprisingly detailed coverage of the SAS in Iraq and, unlike many books on the SAS, seems pretty sober and reliable. Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross recipients: U

Please review the article/list for the following criteria (I realize that it still has many red links)

1. Language and grammar
2. Structure in the overall context of all A through Z articles
3. Assessment for B-class and missing pieces that are needed for A-class
4. Suggested further splits or mergers of some of the other articles. I feel that maybe the H list should be split and that X and Z could be merged

Thanks for all your helpMisterBee1966 (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Just a few comments from me, as most of this is beyond my ken, but here goes:

• I agree that H should be split and X and Z should be merged;
• In the Notes section, # 5 has a full stop but all the others don't
• Berger and Fraschka are listed in the Bibliography, but you don't specifically cite them;
• the ribbon template at the bottom of the article might look better collapsed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

John S. Loisel

I would like to improve this article to A-class from its current GA class. It has failed one previous ACR while it was a B-class article, and subsequently passed a GA review. Looking for any and all suggestions, thanks. (GregJackP (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

AustralianRupert

Sorry for taking so long getting to this one. Overall I think this article is quite good. I have the following suggestions:

• I suggest slightly rewording the first sentence to "...was an American air ace, credited with having shot down..." ("credited with" being the words added in);

 Done GregJackP (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• the lead seems like it could be tightened a bit. I'd suggest putting the comment about Loisel spending more time in combat than any other American in World War II in the second sentence of the lead as it seems fairly notable. I'd then discuss the "lesser" details. The comment about becoming a career Air Force officer probably should be attached to the same sentence as the sentence where he joins the USAAF in 1941;

 Done - as to combat time, could you look at it now? It just doesn't look right when I move the career officer part. GregJackP (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest adding his age on death to the last sentence in the lead;

 Done GregJackP (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• in the Early life section you start two consequtive sentences with "Simon Loisel". Can one be reworded to avoid repitition?

 Done GregJackP (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• do you know which high school Loisel attended?

I "think" that he attended the Catholic high school, but I haven't been able to find out for sure, so I haven't included it in the article. GregJackP (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• is the comment about him mentally preparing himself for battles to come relevant in an encyclopedia?

 Done GregJackP (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• the second paragraph of the World War II section seems a bit muddled. I think the "Indeed he quickly showed his abilities once he started flying an aircraft..." should be before the bit about him shooting down five Japanese fighters;

 Done GregJackP (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• the "landings at Cape Cloucester" I think is a typo (shouldn't it be Cape Gloucester?), also I suggest wikilinking this to "Battle of Cape Gloucester"

 Done GregJackP (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• in the Later life section, should it be "He was survived" rather than "He is survived"? (not sure myself, but it just sounds strange).

I thought so too, but one of the other editors (I think in the earlier ACR it is on the article talk page) said it should be the way it is now, so I changed it. I'm completely open to doing it either way. GregJackP (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, that is it from me. Good work so far with the article and good luck with taking it further. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good, IMO. Good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Army of the Danube order of battle

Would like some additional feedback (beyond B-class) about orders of battle and such, to proceed with this list. Do all the juicy red links need to be blue? Do I need numbers and figures of which battalions, number of men, etc? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

MBK004

• First, this needs order of battle to be renamed to conform with the existing order of battles that are Featured lists. Examples: Order of battle at the Battle of San Domingo, Order of battle at the Battle of the Nile, Order of battle at the Battle of Tory Island, Order of battle at the Glorious First of June, Order of battle in the Atlantic campaign of 1806. This issue alone would be an oppose from me at either ACR or FLC. These FLs are also an excellent resource on which you should model this after. The editor responsible for most of these is Jackyd101 (talk · contribs), so I suggest you ask him for a review. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to rename it, although I had already renamed it based on the early April conversation in the project talk about the order of battle. so I'm still confused. You're saying that Order of Battle of the Army of the Danube sounds/reads better than Army of the Danube order of battle.  ?? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Although I use the "Order of battle at the Battle of XXXX" format and prefer it to the one used here, it has been established at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history that this format of "Army of the Danube order of battle" is also acceptable, provided it is used consistently within the same article context (the o and b of order of battle should always be in lower case however). At the moment no firm guidelines exist on this subject and it would not be an actionable oppose in a higher review process.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight, Jacky. I thought I was doing what I was instructed to do during that project talk that went on a few weeks back. What do you think of the format? Should I imitate the expert and use charts? What else, how else, could I do to arrange the list better? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmph, I guess I would rather see consistency throughout by using just one naming convention for these, but I digress... -MBK₀₀₄ 05:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I'm willing to rename, but I thought I was following the conventions. Is the list suitable, or should there be more text? What do you think? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand

After seeing a post by Parsecboy on The Bushranger's talkpage, I was WP:BOLD and quickly expanded this and moved it to mainspace, later in the day, I found that PArsec had expanded it, and White Shadows, a person I had met through my interrest in U-boating, was telling me to nom it for a GA. It passed with only a few minor MOS probs. As we work on getting a GT out of that, I want to know what has to be done to get this to a: A-Class and b: FA-class. I'll be going back to the library on the 8th to return checked out books, so I could hunt for some refs there. I'd like to hear your opinions please. Buggie111 (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

A couple of quick ones (sorry I'll try to come back for a better look, but it is 1 am here and I should go to sleep):

• there is some inconsistency in style between Citation # 9 and 11. One uses "p. 151-152", while the other uses "pp. 332-3". Either change # 9 to "pp. 151-2" or # 11 to "pp. 332-333";
• the Bibliography has an inconsistent format. Some of the titles have dates in brackets, and others don't. Albertini is the problematic ref. I suggest formatting it with {{cite book}} like the others;
• the Vego ref in the Bibliography should have an endash for the date range (1904-14). — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• All done. I'm going to nominate this for an A-class review, as no other reviews have been given. Buggie111 (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

This article has a long and complex history, having been the subject of multiple arbitration cases, but it appears to be stable now. It has been extensively overhauled and rewritten, and each and every source scrutinized for reliability. After review by several editors, the article was recently promoted to good article status. I am now seeking wider peer review on it before trying again for an FA nom (see original 2007 nom). Any and all comments appreciated, thanks. --Elonka 18:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ed17

• Quick comment - this has probably been addressed before, but shouldn't the title be "Franco-Mongol relations" or "European-Mongol relations"? It was never an alliance and, although Muslims referred to Europeans as "Franks," it's misleading to a reader today, who immediately thinks of France. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, there have been multiple requests to change the article title, but there was never a clear consensus for a move. Some editors feel as you do that "Franco-Mongol relations" might be a better title, but others point out that the term "Franco-Mongol alliance" is definitely used in the literature, even though it's describing something that didn't happen. For other specific quotes of how historians have referred to the concept, see User:Elonka/Mongol historians. Bottom line though, is that the current title, and lead paragraph, appears to be stable, even though there's not a clear consensus for it either way. So we've been going with "stability == consensus".  :) To see the most recent RM, check here. --Elonka 19:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Numerous authors are actually specific about the Franco-Mongol alliance and describe its multiple occurences. For reference:

See: HISTORIANS DESCRIBING THE EXISTENCE OF A FRANCO-MONGOL ALLIANCE (50 historians)

The current article is highly POV in that it misleads the reader into believing that nothing such as an alliance occured and that there is a consensus for such a view. That is untrue: the article should be written in a more balanced way, describing both views about the alliance. Overall, there were multiple agreements between the Mongols and European powers (the very definition of an alliance), which led to combined operations, although on a limited scale with rather unsuccesful results. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• • • I'm not well-versed enough in this subject to reply to your points, PHG, sorry. @Elonka, I see that my other point regarding the use of "Franco" was raised in the RM, too. Boy, I'm late to the party. Would either of you have an objection to me emailing one of my professors, who happens to be quite knowledgeable about the Crusades, regarding this? If not, could we get a somewhat short and central question that I can email to him so that I don't have to point him at reams of text? :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
      • We now a have a large number of sources, pointing both ways, so the solution is really to balance the account rather than exclusively privileging only one view. I am not sure if one more professor could add much to the discussion at this point... Actually, it's almost a problem of semantics: when Elonka says there was no alliance, she means that there was no successful collaboration. But making an alliance is by definition only making an agreement to collaborate, whereas actual collaboration is the outcome of the alliance. I've offered a compromise definition such as:

"The Franco-Mongol alliance was a rapprochement between the Crusader Franks and the Mongols in the diplomatic and military areas during the second half of the 13th century, which led to limited attempts at cooperation and ended in failure against the Mamluks"

I believe this sentence accurately portrays the situation and defuses useless polemics, but I've been so far without success... maybe this is the kind of sentence you could submit to you professor? Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 21:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(sigh) PHG, please respect your topic ban from this area, and please stop arguing this point. It's just going to make the peer review more complicated than necessary. --Elonka 04:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Elonka, what would you think of me asking him just about the article's title? Would it even make a difference? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're welcome to talk to whoever you'd like, but as far as article title, I don't think it would make much of a difference. We already went through a month-long RM a few weeks ago, which came back the same as the RM(s) from two years ago: "no consensus". The current article title of Franco-Mongol alliance may not be the perfect title, but at least it appears to be stable, and personally, I'm okay on keeping it for now. --Elonka 04:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

K - I'll try to give this some sort of review in the next few days. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I look forward to your comments.  :) --Elonka 05:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Initial comments
  • "The Franks (Europeans) were open to the idea of assistance coming from the East" ... I added a hidden note in the text after this sentence, but I'll repeat it here. I think that an explanatory note about why "Franks" = "Europeans" would help a reader's understanding here. It's not exactly common knowledge in the US that Muslims called all Europeans "Franks" regardless of their actual ancestry.
    •  Done I went ahead and linked the term to Franks#Legacy, to help clarify. --Elonka 18:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Among Europeans, there had long been rumors and expectations that a great Christian ally would come from "the East"."
    • Who said "the East" or why is it quoted?
      •  Done. Good catch, I removed the quotes. --Elonka 12:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "This legend fed upon itself, and some individuals who came from the East were greeted with the expectations that they might be the long-awaited Christian heroes."
    • Should "heroes" be singular?
      • I'd say not. Prester John was an individual, but other Mongols were also greeted as relatives or associates of Prester John. Some of the Mongol women were also referred to as "daughters of Prester John", even if there actual relationship was somewhat more distant. --Elonka 12:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Mongol raiding parties were beginning to invade the eastern Islamic world, in Transoxania and Persia in 1219–1221."
    • Is a time frame needed here with the "In 1221" in the previous sentence?
      •  Done. Fixed. --Elonka 18:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The Mongol invasion of Europe subsided in 1242, in part because of the death of the Great Khan Ögedei, successor of Genghis Khan.
    • Was Ogedei the leader of the Golden Horde?
      •  Done. No, Ogedei was Great Khan of the entire Empire. When he died, Mongols from all over the Empire returned to the capital to help decide who should be the next Great Khan. I've rewritten that section of the article a bit, to make things more clear. --Elonka 18:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "He initiated a small crusade, but a storm descended on his fleet as they attempted their crossing, forcing most of the ships to turn back."
    • "He" means James I of Aragon here, right? Best make that clear, even though it's made obvious shortly after. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
      •  Done Fixed. --Elonka 18:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the comments! I'm on semi-wikibreak for a few weeks, but will address these items as soon as I can. --Elonka 20:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done All comments addressed, thanks! --Elonka 18:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Indiana class battleship

I am nominating this article for peer review because I want to get it to GA-class and need some input on where and how to improve the article. Two more things: I know need a decent second source for the events of the battle of Santiago de Cuba (any suggestions are welcome) and Battleship Illinois (replica) should probably be mentioned somewhere in the article, but I have no idea where or how much text I should write about it. Thanks for any feedback or comments Yoenit (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

This article is in very good shape - great work. My only suggestions for further improvements are:

• 'Policy Board' probably doesn't need to be capitalised

 Done

• It's probably better to say that the House of Representatives 'appropriated' or 'approved' money for the ships rather than 'gave' it to the Navy Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done, I turned it into 'approved funding'

Thanks for your comments Yoenit (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The_ed17

• Illinois can probably just stay in the "See also" section; it's not like it had any effect on the design etc., and I have the feeling that any mention would sound like trivia.
• The text needs a copyedit, most glaringly for "it's" vs. "its." When trying to decide which one to use, ask yourself if "it is" would fit instead. If the answer is yes, go with "it's." If the answer is no, go with "its."

Its vs it's is one of those nasty little words which are a pain for non native speakers and it seems I am no exception, doing it consistently wrong. I have fixed all offending cases in the article and checked for then/than and where/were errors at the same time, but I can't really claim the text is now properly copy edited. Will ask somebody from the list of copy editors to have a look at it later. Yoenit (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

C Request has been made at the GoCP page a few days ago. Hope it will be picked up with their May backlog elimination drive Yoenit (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Images: there are a lot of them. Consider removing at least a few, and at the least fix the image sandwiches. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, the number of images and their positioning looked great on my 24" monitor, though I see that there could be problems for other monitor sizes. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Is it just me, or are the infobox image and the image in the "USS Indiana" section one and the same? If so, you could probably lose the one in the ship's section. -- saberwyn 10:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Working on it right now, dumped two pictures, replaced two more and repositioned most of them. I am not sure about the first two pictures though. Ideally I would want to keep them both (the drawing schematic and the ship in drydock), but it is indeed a bit crowded. Any suggestions which to keep or what could be a better position for one? Yoenit (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Decided to remove the drydock picture, since it doesn't really add anything Yoenit (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

update

Article has just passed GA nomination and received a copyedit. I am currently looking to improve it to A/FA-class and any comments are more than welcome.Yoenit (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933-1945)

I have recently expanded this article to a significant extent content wise. However I am still working on some of the tail end sections. Specifically the Field Divisions and the Paratroops. Since this article is about the Organization and not History of Luftwaffe during WW II, I have made an effort to stick to that aim. I will appreciate your thoughts along this line as well since I somehow feel that the Section on Finger Four Formation does not relate to that aim. Also if you could share your thoughts about which section or area has incomplete or insufficient information, those will be immensely appreciated. Lastly, please note that I am going to seek a GA review after I am done. So if there are any issues or areas from GA standpoint, I will appreciate if you could share the same.'  Perseus 71 ^talk 19:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is a very solid article, and Wikipedia needs more articles on thematic topics like this. My suggestions for improvements are:

• The article needs a bit of a copy edit
• The article needs to be checked for over-linking - Hermann Göring is linked on several occasions, for example
• Some material isn't cited
• The first para of the article should provide an overview of the entire article - at present it just jumps in at the start without providing an overview of the article's topic and what it covers
• The names of different levels of organisation shouldn't be bolded
• It would be helpful to explain why the division of the Luftwaffe between administrative and operational commands gave it a high degree of mobility
• The article states that "A Geschwader would be equivalant to a Wing in allied Airforce", but previously (and correctly) notes that USAAF Wings were the equivalent of British groups. As such, this sentence needs to be clarified - it seems that you're referring to a British wing
• The 'Aircraft Camouflage Schemes and Identification Markings' section seems to be beyond the scope of this article (which is already reasonably long and detailed) and should be separated into a new article Nick-D (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Siege of Trsat

I am interested in opinions of more experienced editors on how the quality and standard of the article can be improved, maybe even for GA class some day. One of the problems is, that there isn't enough accurate sources of the battle itself. Thanks. Kebeta (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Magicpiano

Interesting read; if the sources can support some of my commentary, it has potential.

I wouldn't necessarily worry about a lack of accurate or detailed sources; there are many events of all sorts where details are lacking. All you have to do is make sure you properly cover what the sources you have actually say; particularly note if they talk about a lack of primary material to justify "unknown" details. It's fine to do this explicitly; read some of the GA/FA articles about battles and wars of ancient Greece. If I was reviewing this for GA, I would expect the vague/unknown values in the infobox to be cited, and perhaps discuss in the siege and aftermath how various sources characterize the force and casualty counts.

Some specific comments:

• Background: assume your reader is a 12-year-old child from India. Is your background sufficient to describe the political landscape of Europe at the time? Probably not; you need to provide more, and indicate how the relevant borders relate to modern states. (I find in articles I write about battles and sieges that the background is often equal or greater in length than the action itself.)
• "Thus, " - I hate "thus". Simply state "This brought the Frankish state..."
• I have a very weak sense of the severity of the impact of Eric's death. Is it really limited to the fact that his successor's campaigns the following year? You need to play up his importance before the action, and emphasize more the consequences of his absence afterward (assuming sources discuss this, of course).
• It seems to be implied in the aftermath that the Byzantines had some influence over Littoral Croatia. You should explain what kind of relationship they had in the background. (Were the Avars and Slavs part of the Byzantine Empire? Vassal states? Buffer states playing one side against the other?)
• The article will need copyediting - extra and missing commas, other mostly minor grammatical issues. This should probably not happen until after it's more factually elaborate.

-- Magic♪piano 14:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Magicpiano for a review. I found the above well meaning remarks very useful, especially part about sources and a a lack of primary material. Background will be expanded, and copyediting is always needed after my heavy edits. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Siege of Fort William Henry

Before I subject this to an ACR or FAC grilling (which I think it's not overly far from), I could use some feedback on this one. Some particular things I'd like commentary on:

• does the chronology (of events preceding the siege itself) need to be improved?
• was there a massacre or a "massacre" (i.e. something called a massacre that maybe wasn't one)?

Thanks! Magic♪piano 20:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hchn2009

A couple of quick thoughts.

• The Background section assumes the reader knows who the French and Indian war was between; might be worth expanding it to say the "French and Indian war, between x, y and z" perhaps or something like that. NB: since us Brit's named the war, we incorrectly took it for granted that everyone would know that we fought in it! :)
• British Planning section. "William Pitt rising to take control over military matters. (Pitt eventually became Prime Minister after the poor results of the 1757 military campaign.)" I'd think that the second bit probably belongs in the consequences section later; you could then go for "William Pitt, not yet Prime Minister, rising to take control..." to keep the key point in about him not yet being PM.
• Legacy. "The British did not try to build over the site of Fort William Henry" - wasn't sure about this sentence. Didn't try to build over in the sense of rebuilding, or constructing something else on top of it?
• Chronology. Your chronology worked for me.
• Massacre. I think the historiography of the term in this instance is very interesting, and I enjoyed your section on it. Personally, I'd go for massacre without the speech marks. 184 (albeit at max, 184) people being killed is a fair old number. I had a glance down the wikipedia list of events named massacres, and it appears that both in the 1700s and today the term has been applied to much smaller number of deaths.

Hchc2009 (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I'll make some of the changes you suggest after I've had some more commentary. (I'm definitely leaning toward removing the scare quotes from "massacre" at this point.) Magic♪piano 14:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all; as usual, an enjoyable article to read. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

John Perkins (Royal Navy officer)

• Coordinator note, this article was put forward for a peer review by Corneredmouse (talk · contribs) -MBK₀₀₄ 19:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Benea

A few comments:

• I find the style of disambiguation unusual. Going by the styles found in Category:Royal Navy admirals or Category:Royal Navy officers, 'John Perkins (Royal Navy officer)' would be a more appropriate form of disambiguation, rather than appending a nickname.
• The style of writing ships followed by their rating or armament as you have done was common in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Endeavour schooner, or Antelope (50)) but is far less common now, and may confuse readers. I'd suggest writing this as 'the schooner Endeavour', or 'the 50-gun HMS Antelope').
• There seems to be a lot of commentary or original research in this article. Instances like 'It can be inferred therefore that his father was white and his mother black and most probably a slave.', 'however, his disappointment is understandable considering his achievements', 'Clearly, familial, political and social influences played an important role in promotions and at the time the son of a slave could not expect the patronage of the wealthy and well connected.', 'The letters make clear the disappointment and heart ache of a man who had aided and armed the slaves, actively fought for their freedom and even been tortured and condemned to death for his involvement. He saw at first hand the fruits of his labour poisoned. His account of the massacres is far more personal and heartfelt than any impartial observer' should be removed. Just state the bare facts, without any commentary. Some sections like the little commentary of the likelihood of promotion based on family linkages probably does not belong here.
• Many instances of WP:POV ('Captain John Perkins was an extraordinary character who lived many lives', 'In March 1804 after having completed this final and tragic mission...', etc). This needs to be removed.
• Direct quotes should not be in bold type. (WP:MOSBOLD)
• Date formatting should be in British-English/International format here, eg. 15 December 1798 instead of December 15, 1798.
• Be careful that your sources support what you write. J.J. Colledge for example can be used to prove the existence of a ship, but not Perkins' involvement with it. Similarly while confirming Nelson was aboard Bristol Sugden does not support the statement that 'it is likely that Perkins met the future Admirals Nelson and Collingwood...'Benea (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Juliancolton

• The lead seems a bit oddly formatted to me. The first paragraph needn't be only one sentence long, for instance.
• At the beginning of his career in the service, In his first command during the American War of Independence he was in charge of a ten gun schooner. - Two sentences accidentally merged?
• In less than two years in that command he captured not less than three hundred and fifteen enemy ships. - Quite a bit of redundancy here; I would amend this to: In under two years he captured 315 enemy ships.
• After his rescue... - What rescue?
• More wikification would be good in the lead (links to place names, etc.)

Hope this brief review helps a bit. Best, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

3rd Battalion 3rd Marines

This article achieved FA status about three years ago. I recently nominated it for the Main Page and got hit by a barrage of complaints, so I'm sending it here for a "tune-up". Comments, criticisms, and the like are welcome and appreciated. Palm_Dogg (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Hi, I have a few comments, but nothing major. I've had a bit of a look at the TFA request and frankly I have to disagree with some of it. The removal of the "History" section header, I think, goes against the standard structure of most unit articles I've seen, but I don't have any TFA request experience, so maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, here are my comments, please do with them what you wish:

• the asterisks in the Engagements section of the infobox could be wikified so they appear as in this article: No. 3 Commando;
• date ranges in the infobox should have spaced endashes per WP:DASH;
• (not sure of this point), but suspect that left aligned images shouldn't come after level 2 headers ;
• I think that the article probably has too many images, I suggest removing some (particularly the unit patches) as they are linked through the Commons portal at the bottom of the article anyway;
• is the article correctly titled? (I'm not sure, but suspect it would be better to name it 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment as wouldn't that be it's official name);
• there is some inconsitency in terminology. In the Early Cold War seciton you use the term "Third Battalion", but mostly elsewhere you use "3rd Battalion";
• per the WP:MOS numbers 10 or greater should usually use numerals, while those less than 10 should be spelt; one example where this is not followed is in the Cold War section ("During the exercise, Third Battalion...over sixty helicopters" (sixty should be expressed as 60);
• in the last paragraph of World War II seciton, the claim that a member of the battalion was the last American killed during World War II perhaps needs to be reworded or clarified. The date is stated as December 14, 1945, but the war was officially over a couple of months before this, so it was after World War II, surely?
• suggest renaming the World War II, Bougainville, and Guam (1942-1945) section to just "World War II (1942-45)" as the current config implies somehow that World War II, Bougainville and Guam are separate conflicts;
• given that the "History" section heading has been removed, perhaps the structure could be improved by including a few level 3 headings in the World War II seciton (possibly Formation, Bougainville and Guam);
• the last part o3rd Battalion 3rd Marines (3/3)f the third paragraph in World War II section appears uncited (beginning, "After Bougainville, 3/3 conducted numerous training...");
• in the World War II section, Warren in USS Warren should be italicised as it is a ship name;
• in the Early Cold War section, Bayfield in USS Bayfield should be italicised as it is a ship name;
• the last part of the first paragraph in the Vietnam War seciton appears to be uncited;
• the second paragraph in the Vietnam War section needs a citation (beginning with "The battalion's first major operation...);
• the fourth paragraph in the Vietnam War section (beginning with "3/3 did not see major action...") needs a citation;
• in the last paragraph of the Vietnam section you have "1600" (as in days) and then "2,800". A comma should be added to 1600 to be consistent in style for numbers over a thousand;
• terms like Medal of Honor have been linked numerous times; usually they should only be linked sparingly;
• in the Gulf War section, the last part of the second paragraph appears to be uncited;
• in the Gulf War section, the caption for the Khafji image has curly quotation marks for "Cleaning up Khafji", but under the Manual of Style they should be straight;
• in the Afghan and Iraq Wars section, "Victory Circle" has curly quotation marks, but as per above, they should be straight;
• what exactly is the "3/3 Battalion Command Chronology" source listed in Notes 29, 31-34, etc? Is it a source that is internal to the organisation, or is it available for readers to view and verify?
• I suggest separating the citations that provide references (e.g Author date page etc) and those that clarify points (e.g. Note # 1, 5 etc.). You could make your clarification points "Footnotes" and references could be "Citations", that way it is clearer to the reader which has a clarification point and which has a source. For an example of an article with this, please see No. 3 Commando;
• Note # 3 requires publisher information
• Note # 45 needs publisher and accessdate information;
• the References section format is inconsistent, the Huddleston source has surname first, but Lehrack source has first name first;

Anyway, that is it from me. I hope this helps. Thanks for your contribution. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Think I got most of them. Still need to work on the Vietnam section, though. Palm_Dogg (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney

• The info box is uncited
  • Comment - What exactly needs to be cited? I think I addressed most of your other concerns. Palm_Dogg (talk) 06:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• Being a Brit 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines (3/3) I am not sure of the terminology but I have always heard it spoken as 3rd of the 3rd so should it not be 3rd Battalion 3rd Marine Regiment (3rd of the 3rd)' ?
  • Comment - That's not how we do it across the pond. "3/3" is the standard USMC shorthand. Palm_Dogg (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• Some of the notable commanders in the inf box do not have articles. Are they really notable if so red links or create articles for them of remove them from the inf box.
• Agree with above some of the images are taking over the article.
• During the Battle of Iwo Jima, 3rd Battalion, as part of 3rd Marines, was kept offshore as the Expeditionary Troops reserve. However, despite numerous requests from other Marine officers, the 3rd Marines spent its time at Iwo Jima sitting in its transport ships. On March 5, 1945, the 3rd Marines were ordered to return to Guam

That's all for now but I will return later - Would it not be better to say they were not involved but kept in reserve if they need to be mentioned at all as part of the force.

• Comment - Iwo Jima is tricky because the battalion did not actually participate in the battle, but was awarded a campaign star for its involvement as the reserve force. Palm_Dogg (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• Lack of consistency some times we see 3/3 did not see major action other times its In early 1969, 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II

I would appreciate an external view. Its a very large topic, yet some detail is needed. Did I get that balance right? This is an 'umbrella' article, with articles on ships, companies and events to follow. (Irish Oak "jumped the gun" and was nominated earlier than I intended - that was a good thing). When this article makes GA, I will follow with MV Kerlogue, ST Leukos and others. WP:IMAR is a little lonely at present. All opinions welcome ClemMcGann (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

NtheP

Clem, this is a fascinating read, thanks for all your work so far. I'll probably have more later but my first impression on balance was, where is a section about Allied attacks on Irish shipping? It's mentioned in the lead but then the topic doesn't appear to surface again. I appreciate that events like the Kerlogue being bombed by the RAF are covered in the Kerlogue article but I think there needs to be an overview on this page. NtheP (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You are correct. In the lead I have 'attacked by both' and "rescued both". I'll add back the RAF attack (and denial) on the Kerlogue. (it is in note 32) Since I have U-boats stopping ships and letting them go, I'll add RN ships doing likewise - probably the Irish Plane and "where is County Clare" story. However I'm concerned lest it is too big. ClemMcGann (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

RAF attack on Kerlogue added Y

revised my opinion, I left out the "where is Clare" story N (unless you advise otherwise) ClemMcGann (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

As the grandson of a member of the Australian World War II merchant navy I think that it's great to see good quality articles like this on the important contribution made by merchant mariners during the war. My suggestions for further improvements are as follows:

Nick, thanks for the compliment and thanks for your detailed comments, I appreciate your time.

• The list of books consulted should be placed in alphabetical order - Done Y
• There are way too many notes, and most of them need to be referenced. -  Doing...

I will review them - is there a convention for refs on notes?

Yes, all material needs to be cited in higher-rated Wikipedia articles, so notes aren't exempt. Nick-D (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I meant: is there a way to put a ref within a ref? ClemMcGann (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, you can just place a reference within the note - there are a couple of examples of this in the Dutch 1913 battleship proposal article Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ta very, I was not aware of such syntax ClemMcGann (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)  Thanks

some(?) now referenced  Doing... done Y

• The single paragraph sub-sections in the Background section should be consolidated

will do  Doing... Y Done

• The 'Change of Flag' section repeats some material which is in the background section

will review  Doing... Y Removed

• The 'Cargo' section seems a bit short - are more data on imports and exports available?

Data exists, although some official data is unreliable, it was exaggerated for wartime propaganda

CSO data on tillage added Y

• The 'Food consumption, per capita, in Calories' table doesn't seem very useful as it gives only the pre-war and post-war figures

I'll look again, my objective was to show that Irish consumption remained stable while others deteriorated. Again some wartime statistics cannot be relied on, pre-war and post-war figures are better. Earlier I was looking at UK imports from the dominions, they seemed to exceed shipping capacity. A friend pointed out that they were published during the war and were inflated for propaganda.

changed from table to a bar chart Y

back to a table N

• It seems a bit inaccurate to say that "some foods were not traditionally grown in Ireland, as the climate was deemed unsuitable" - surely the climate was unsuitable

Point taken - thanks - Done Y

• The full names of people should be provided when they're first mentioned (eg, "To the great annoyance of Gray" is a bit unclear). In other cases who they were needs to be explained (eg, "Frank Aiken reverted that policy").

Point taken - thanks - Done Y

• The text of the article states that restrictions on the use of gas were ' enforced by the Glimmer Man' but note 19 says that no such inspectors actually existed

I will probably just delete the note. There were various fictional inspectors. The public believed in them - and feared them. So they were effective. However from a wikipedia pov there are plenty of books saying that they existed - so they can be verified - Done Y (even if they didn't ;) )

• The 'Inver Tankers' section seems to be miss-placed in the 'cargo' section, and may be too detailed

I will look at it, I need to put some thought into this

reduced - moved to a note Y

• The statement that "The advantages of protection and cheaper insurance were not borne out by experience. So they chose to sail alone." needs to be expanded upon. Overall, Allied ships sailing in convoy suffered dramatically lower casualty rates than those sailing independently - did Irish ships experience the opposite as they were less likely to be attacked due to their neutral status?

Good question. Certainly they believed it to be so. The insurance company set up by Irish Shipping made a handsome profit.

One would image that such info would be readily available, but I can't find it. Ireland lost 16 of 56 (including Clonlara in convoy. What were allied in-convoy losses? N

• The 'U-boats' section should probably be earlier in the article given the importance of its topic (eg, the instructions given to German submariners regarding Irish shipping)

Moved Y

You make a few valid points on the structure - this, the Inver tankers, 'change of flag' v background - I need time to consider the structure

• The gallery of photos in the 'After the war' section seems unnecessary Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, given that I took them, I'm attached to them :)

Moved to the end and text added to each Y

Thanks again - I now have plenty of food for thought ClemMcGann (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Haus

Big fan of the article, but have had a hard time making concrete suggestions. Very nice job nailing down citations. Please take these points in the collegial spirit they are meant:

• Not a fan of the cquotes, the one in the intro seems particularly out of place.

gone Y}

• Should it be "The Irish Mercantile Marine"?

yes - done Y

• WP:LEDE suggests few if any citations in the lead. Statements made in the lead should also be in the body of the article, and cited there. I sense this guideline changed while I was away.
• WP:LEDE suggests that the article name and other alternate names should be bolded in the first paragraph. This, in turn suggests something like "The Irish Mercantile Marine in World War II, known as The Long Watch to..." as a first sentence

changed Y

• The de Valera and Dönitz photos... Not sure how much they contribute to the article, and their placement on the left is at odds with a guideline at WP:MOSIMAGE about sandwiching text horizontally between images.

still there N any other views?

• "Irish ships were offered the protection of sailing in a convoy..."
  • This is an example of a "stubby paragraph", cf User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Paragraphing
  • Why do ships usually travel in convoy?

+ve: protection, insurance

-ve: 'legitimate target', time

• • Who offered the protection?

Royal Navy

• • I think the best thing to do would be remove the subheadings "Insurance" and "Convoy experience" and make the section three substantial paragraphs.

removed Y

• The two tables in the cargo section. There's a layout issue here. One part is consistency: right now "Food" is to the right of the first table, and "Beef exports" is above the second. However, even if they were consistent, I can't see how, given the relative sizes of the text and the table, these could be formatted in a manner consistent with featured article quality. Maybe - and this is a wild guess - combining all 4 sets of data in a chart, placing it on the right, and removing the Ardmore picture...
• Having the citations and the reference list smushed together is a problem. There are a variety of ways of dealing with this. See, for example, Parsecboy's Derfflinger class battlecruiser.

done Y

Cheers Haus^Talk 10:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC) A couple of bits I forgot:

• Reconsider use of exclamation points per MOS:EXCLAMATION#Terminal_punctuation

gone Y

• The paragraph "U-638 stopped the Irish Elm..." needs to be reworked. I'd move the note material into the text, remove the parentheses, and try to get the paragraph to flow a little more naturally.

can we say that he was Familiar with the town? I vaguely recollect that he was on the SS Urundi when Blueshirts embarked for the Spanish Civil War? I do not have a reference.

sure... i was just trying to nudge the paragraph towards a more natural flow, it's by no means sacrosanct Haus^Talk 12:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks ClemMcGann (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding the photos in "After the war"
  • Take a look at WP:CAPTION, I don't think captions like "3rd Sunday in November" are explanatory enough

all expanded Y

• • Consider moving the Ganly/McCarthy photo into the gallery

done Y

• • "Some of these paintings are reproduced on this page." seems off to me

gone Y}

Cheers. Haus^Talk 11:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for your past advice, there is a lot here to be considered. ClemMcGann (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Coming along very nicely. I think that at this rate, you'll have a smooth road to WP:MHR#A-CLASS by the time the article passes GA. Haus^Talk 15:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

let's be optimistic and think FA!

I need to consider the comments on structure - thanks, again ClemMcGann (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Dank

Sure, you can absolutely think FA, this is a delightful article, but I see a lot of things that make my edit button itchy if you're headed to FAC eventually ... I'm going to take some time today reading ship FAC reviews to confirm or deny some of my suspicions, then I'll give this a whack. - Dank (push to talk) 12:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

appreciated ClemMcGann (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• These are just some guesses for things you could do with the introduction based on what I've seen at A-class reviews and FAC; don't take these in the spirit of "you did this wrong".

don't worry - I appreciate your opinion.

• You'll run into resistance at FAC over use of the word "ton", since MOSNUM says not to use it: "Use long ton or short ton and not just ton; these units have no symbol or abbreviation and are always spelled out. The tonne, 1000 kilograms, is officially known as the metric ton in the US. Whichever name is used, the symbol is t." I think this is a really tough question, and I'm not particularly happy with the current consensus, either at MOSNUM or at SHIPS. I think we don't write for dead people, we write for whoever's reading right now, and modern readers in Ireland will have a better feel for what a tonne is than what a long ton is (even though the units are very close). Still, there's value in using words and concepts that are used by experts in reliable sources; it can lend both charm and authority. But that position has left too many sentences at FAC struggling under the weight of either conversions among 3 different kinds of tons or, if conversions are omitted, then the unit the reader is most likely to be familiar with is often the one being omitted. But as I say, I'm not in the majority. I never care about unit conversions; I'm just bringing up the issue so you'll be prepared.

I'm not happy with it either. I did add a note saying which ton was used. imho conversions seem to break up the flow of a sentence

• Lose every note in the introduction. In some cases, some of the text should be worked into the introduction;

some notes worked in, some gone  Doing... most gone Y

• "diminutive" isn't enough information, but you could say "thousands of tonnes [or whatever] as opposed to millions of tonnes for most Western European countries", and then give the figures either in the appropriate section or a note in the appropriate section. In some cases you could push all the information down into another section.

thinking ...

"diminutive" gone Y Norwegian comparison added Y

• You may be asked to remove some of the citations from the introduction, on the theory that the information is probably repeated in greater detail below and should be cited there, and mostly on the theory that we want the introduction to be as attractive and simple (but precise) as possible, to draw the reader in.

thinking ... some removed Y although others remain

• I think I'd prefer "non-allied" or "neutral" to "non-participants", but perhaps the latter has a technical or accepted meaning I'm not aware of.

not sure ... unless there are other voices, I'm leaving it alone N

• "... they always stopped to rescue. Irish mariners rescued seafarers from both sides ..." should be tightened, but I'm not sure how.

how? ... can't see how N

• I appreciate the effort to create a "punchy" style in the introduction, reviewers often seem to ask for that, but I think you're taking it too far, for instance: "Vital imports arrived. Exports, mainly food supplies for Great Britain, were delivered. 521 lives were saved."

not sure ... can't see how N

• I agree with a previous reviewer about removing {{cquote}} from the introduction.

Looks like it will have to go. I was attracted to the idea of a cquote at the top 'we are in trouble' balanced with another near the end 'the mercantile marine delivered'

gone Y

• Okay that's all for now, I'll revisit this as it moves through the review process. - Dank (push to talk) 01:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of food for though there. Thanks for your time ClemMcGann (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If you like, you can leave things as they are and we'll see how the reviewers react. - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

for some parts, I will Y, I still value your opinion ClemMcGann (talk)

Thanks much. I see you're working hard on this and you've done a lot of good research and have a lot of good ideas. I'll give it another look when it gets to A-class review. - Dank (push to talk) 01:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No, thank you. Without external opinion i would just drift ClemMcGann (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Response

Thanks to all. I reckon I'm there. A few doubts such as the use of tons. Any final thoughts before I seek GA? ClemMcGann (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Effect of World War I on Children in the United States

project of Auntieruth55's Shaping the Modern World Class. I've listed this article for peer review because… I want further editing tips/scholarly advice this is part of an educational assignment that requires a peer review!

Thanks, Santolinek & Donovank (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Purely on a naming convention, I believe "The" should be dropped and "Effect" and "Children" not capitalised as they aren't part of a proper name or proper name title. Descriptive articles titles usually just go "Reaction to ...." and "Assassination of ..." etc without the definite article YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I moved this for them. They can take care of the subheadings. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Interesting article, I have a few observations/comments:

• References could be formatted with {{cite book}} template;
• Citation # 8 is a web citation and could be formatted with {{cite web}}; this would create a hyperlink that readers could follow to verify the information;
• Citation # 7 needs some more information, I assume that it is the "Wilson Makes Suffrage Appeal" article, but am not sure. Does this article have an author name?
• the book references should have ISBN numbers;
• could some more categories be added to the bottom of the article? This improves the flow of traffic to the article (currently you only have one);
• a few more images would serve to better illustrate the article;
• the image that is there should have Alt text per WP:ALT;
• Citation # 2 requires more information, I couldn't find this source listed in the Reference list
• Citation # 22 is inconsistent with the format used throughout the article, it should have the author's name, article title and a page number (if available);

I think this sentence should be re-considered: "post-traumatic stress was considered cowardice..." For me this sentence does not really convey the situation correctly. What is now known as post traumatic stress disorder was not fully understood at the time (it possibly still isn't), thus men suffering from it who were unable to continue fighting were sometimes thought to be cowards. Nevertheless, shell shock was recognised as a legitimate battle condition). Thus I feel you should perhaps reword this sentence.

• in the Home life section you discuss something that occured between 1870 and 1910; this is not relevant as it does not relate to the period being discussed (1914-18, or in the case of the US 1917-18). Can you obtain figures for this period instead?
• In the Technology section, this sentence is a little awkward: "Additionally, technology advanced and advanced weaponry such as the Zeppelin, a German airship, which could release a number of bombs at one time, created huge casualties and made war even deadlier than before" (the repeated word "advanced" is the issue, however, can you also provide a few other examples, improved direct fire weapons probably had more of an effect on the casualty rate than Zeppelins (also, arguably tactical dificiencies also had a considerable part to play);
• make sure to only include works in the References section that have been specifically cited in the article (i.e. have an inline citation), if they don't they should be listed in a section called "Further reading"
• The final sentence in the Background to World War I section needs a citation;
• I suggest adding a citation to the first paragraph in the Impact on daily life seciton; sentence beginning "After the United States entered the war, daily life was altered";
• In the Impact on education section, this sentence needs a citation: "Things like the importance of the ROTC program were also stressed during this time. Nationalist posters and other forms of propaganda were placed in public areas throughout the country and again stressed the importance of patriotism."
• Could the Youth organisations section be expanded a little? What organisations other than the Boy Scouts were affected?

Anyway, good work so far. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review and helpful comments! Sorry it took us so long to respond, we are still new to Wikipedia and did not realize that you had left comments. We are going to make the revisions that you have suggested this week. Again thank you so much, your comments are really appreciated! Santolinek (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, no dramas at all. If you want, you can add the review page to your watchlist. This page should give you all the info you need: Help:Watching pages. That will mean that when you log in, you can just go to your watchlist and it will show any articles/pages that have been edited recently. That way you know what articles to check. Anyway, best of luck with the assignment. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is a very interesting topic for an article, and an example of the kind of social history article Wikipedia needs a lot more of. My suggestions for further improvements are:

• The 'Background of World War I' section is unnecessary - that's what a link to World War I is for
• The article is rather unfocused at times - for instance, the first paragraph of the 'Technology' section only covers military technology, and is is not relevant to the article's topic
• The British poster of a Zeppelin over London is out of place in this article Nick-D (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

22nd Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry

I know, another Massachusetts Civil War unit. Don't worry, it's really just the 21st (already done) and 22nd that I'm interested in. (Although at some future date, it's not impossible that another should come down the pipeline). I am hoping to nominate this for A class. Any comments, suggestions, etc. to improve the article would be appreciated. Thanks! Historical Perspective (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

It looks quite good to me, but I don't have specific content knowledge. As such, my comments are mainly cosmetic:

• In the Organization section, this needs a citation: "To this regiment were attached the 3rd Battery Massachusetts Light Artillery and the 2nd Company Massachusetts Sharpshooters. Thus, the 22nd Massachusetts became one of the few infantry units in the Civil War with attached artillery and sharpshooters";
• In the Organization section, this needs a citation: "During its first winter of service, the 22nd remained at Hall's Hill and became proficient in military drill"
• In the Siege of Yorktown section, this needs a citation: "Despite this, McClellan believed he faced a much larger force and settled in for a month-long siege of Yorktown";
• Siege of Yorktown section, last paragraph, "1st brigade, 1st division, V Corps": brigade and division should be capitalised as they are proper nouns;
• In the Battle of Gaines' Mill section, this needs a citation: "On June 26, Gen. Robert E. Lee, who had recently taken command of the Army of Northern Virginia, launched a daring counter-offensive intended to drive McClellan's army away from Richmond. For the 22nd, the third day of the Seven Days Battles, the Battle of Gaines' Mill, proved to be devastating as they suffered their worst casualties of the war";
• In the first paragraph of the Camp Gove section, the value "1 mile" could have a {{convert}} template added to it to show equivalent distance;
• last sentence of the opening paragraph of the Gettsyburg campaign section probably needs a citation;
• I suggest rewording the last sentence of the Battle of Gettysburg campaign to: "In terms of percentages, this represented the regiment's highest number of casualties in an individual battle";
• The final sentence of the Mustering out seciton probably needs a citation.

Anyway, that is it from me. You may do with these what you see fit. Good work so far and good luck with improving the article. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Response. Thanks very much for your comments. All very helpful. I've done all of the above. Regards, Historical Perspective (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Frank Gorenc

I am adding this article for review. Scott. Skottieboyy2k (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

Well you haven't said what you goal with this article is, but if you were even looking for B-Class, it will need sources other that military press releases etc, and more prose instead of just a CV type listing. Other things

• Refs need to be filled out with details
• Slovenia was not an indept country when he was born
• How did he come to the US? refugee? normal immigration?
• Images need more copyright detail, simply saying USAF isn't enough for verifiability. Did it come from a book or website? This needs to be specified

YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Good start so far, I have a few comments:

• stacking of the images produces a large amount of whitespace on my screen between the Education and Publications sections;
• the headings shouldn't be capitalised the way the are, for example "Early Life and Journey to America" should be "Early life and journey to America" (all the other section heading will also need to be changed in this regard, too);
• I suggest changing the name of "Commission and General Career" to "Military career"
• some of the images are very large, I suggest reducing their size so they don't dominate the article so much, also is there a need for so many images?
• the See also section has a lot of whitespace on my screen due to the placement of images;
• the References section should be above the External links section;
• the citations currently show the long url chains, I suggest formatting them with the {{cite web}} template, which will automatically embed them;
• Citation # 7 is to a wiki article. It might seem a bit counterintuitive, however, we do not consider ourselves an appropriate reference, so it should be removed from the citations (it can, however, be included as an internal link);
• the ribbon links/boxes (USAF, USAFE, Links to related articles, etc.) should go at the bottom of the article;
• per the WP:MOS, quotation marks should be straight (e.g. ") not curly. In the Early life section you have used curly quotation marks;
• date ranges should have endashes per WP:DASH;
• dates of rank and awards also need citations to WP:RS;

Anyway, that is it. Good luck with improving this article. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ian Rose

This is looking a lot better than when I first saw it and if you continue as you are, it should be quite good by the end of it. Apart from what the guys have said above, you want to avoid too many lists. The details in the Education section should turned into prose, and integrated at appropriate spots into his story, chronologically - likewise Assignments and Dates of Ranks. That's all for now, may have some more later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Special Boat Service

Any article about special forces will be hard to find verifiable/reliable sources so this will never be an FA article. However I think it coulld be A Class but needs some outside thoughts. I have cut down all the action man and boys own hero stuff and the article has been stable for some time now. As ever any comments appreciated.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Good work so far with this one, Jim. Here are my comments, mainly cosmetic issues:

• in the lead "counter-terrorism" has an endash, but this should be a hyphen;
• Afghanistan and Iraq could be wikilinked in the lead to the respective conflicts;
• on my screen there is a large amount of whitespace due to the positioning of the photograph of Major Lassen. This would probably be fixed by moving it left;
• in the first and second sentences of the Second World War section, you have mixed capitalisation of the word "commando"; also I suggest moving the wikilink of this term to the first mention (i.e. from second sentence to the first);
• in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Second World War, the word captain has been capitalised, however, in this case it is an improper noun and should be lower case (per Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Military terms;
• in the Second World War section you have used "Agean", is this correct? Should it be Aegean?
• in the Post war section, I think "king" (as in "king Idris I of Libya") should be capitalised;
• in the Post war section, the name of a ship ("Queen Elizabeth 2") could be italicised, as this seems to be generally accepted throughout the project;
• in the Special Boat Squadron section, I think the word "Invasion" should be lower case;
• the first sentence of the 21st Century section is a run-on sentence. I suggest adding a comma after the word "Barras";
• the second sentence in the section needs to be tweaked as it is not grammatically correct ("This was followed in November 2001 the SBS..."). Perhaps change to "During the US invasion of Afghanistan, the SBS had an extensive role...";
• The Recruitment, selection and training section could have emdashes added beside the bulleted points for consistency.

Anyway, that is it for now. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

All done I left the image aligned right but moved it down that may cure the problenm on your screen with whitespace ? Thanks for the review.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That did the trick! Good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

ALR

Should probably come as no surprise, but I have concerns about the over-reliance on news-media sources for a lot of the current stuff, a couple of the others I'd question whether they meet the Verifiability criteria; Britains Small Wars and Military Careers. In practice BSW isn't bad, but the Military Careers website is a rehash of Elite-Forces UK.

Personally I would add some caveats to the organisation section to reflect the reliance on a 10 year old BBC article. There has been a significant restructuring since 2003 so it's quite out of date. There is nothing reliable in the public domain so my inclination is to caveat, or even slim it down. I should have culled all of that when I restructured the page, but it was a while ago and I was still hesitant about being overly deletionist.

ALR (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Its included in the Present day section - The Ministry of Defence does not comment on special forces matters, therefore little verifiable information exists in the public domain.

The news media are reliabe sources - The Times, Independant, Daily Telegrapth, BBC etc

Thanks for the input and and help with RS is appreciated --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My concern is mainly around the extent of their use.

I can have another nose around but the applicant criteria, testing standards, process etc are all contained in a Confidential DCI/ DIN, similarly the ORBAT is Conf. Military tasks are public domain but a bit high level, so doing anything with them would probably be OR.

It's much improved, but I'm not sure that I know of anything public domain that is really credible.

ALR (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

This article is in reasonable condition, but I think that it needs quite a bit more work to reach A class:

• Why not call the "British Naval Service" the "Royal Navy", which is its common (and very well known) name?
• The history section is a bit sketchy
• The claim " that by 1944 200–300 SBS men held down six German divisions" isn't credible. German dispositions in the Balkans were mainly motivated by the massive resistance movement and fears of a full scale Allied invasion.
• The statement that "The SBS went on to serve in the Korean War " is wrongly placed after accounts of their activities in the mid-1950s; the Korean War was long over by then.
• The coverage of the Iraq War should include the reports of a patrol being badly bungled which led to public recriminations between the SAS and SBS
• The 'See also' section should be integrated into the article, and the Australian clearance diving teams removed - the CDTs are not special forces and don't have a comparable role to the SBS (they focus on general diving duties and mine clearance, with a limited sideline into beach reconnaissance and small detachments with the Tactical Assault Groups) Nick-D (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review - changed to Royal Navy, This was not the Balkans but the Greek islands, Korean War detail moved up the article to correct time, I have got rid of the see also section I have nver liked them and it was left over from before I started working on the article. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

China Marine (memoir)

Peer review of China Marine (memoir) is requested, as The Pacific (miniseries) will draw more public attention to Eugene Sledge and his work over the next few months. I have particular concerns about trying to expose his point of view completely but without adding my own nor doing original research. Sledge was a highly opinionated man and I have tried to completely footnote the opinions expressed. Some other editors have taken a passing interest in the article but in general it still lacks a good critical going-over of its style and content, by an editor who is familiar with its subject. I will be very much reduced in my Wikipedia editing time for a number of weeks but those are critical weeks as The Pacific (miniseries) unfolds and readers start looking for more info on Sledge. Thanks. Trilobitealive (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

I've not had much experience reviewing articles on books, so please forgive me if my comments aren't exactly what you are looking for. Here are my comments, please do with them as you wish:

• in the lead, place a full stop after B (as in Eugene B Sledge) as you have a full stop after the E in Stephen E. Ambrose;
• are there any images that could be added? An image of the author, or of a copy of the book (of course, this may not be possible due to copyright);
• last paragraph in Synopsis/Okinawa section possibly needs a citation;
• there is inconsistency in how you treat the abbreviation US. In the lead you have used "U.S." but later in the Synopsis/America section you have used "US" (without the stops). I think under American English standards it should be U.S., but I'm not sure of this point (consistency is the key anyway);
• in the Synopsis/America section I suggest wikilinking "officer" to Officer (armed forces) as some readers might not know what this means;
• the article possibly could do with a bit of expansion if you want to take to FA. Could you perhaps include a discussion on any reviews that the book has received? (I'm not sure if this is standard in book articles on Wiki, so please ignore if it isn't);
• regarding the citations, is there a need to include the full bibliographic details of the book in every citation, particularly when it is mentioned in the references section. Perhaps you could just use the short citation system in the Notes section and include the full bibliographic details in the References section (WP:CITESHORT has some possible layouts);
• suggest bullet pointing the work in the References section for consistency;
• in the References section you list the title as just "China Marine", but in the lead you have "China Marine: An Infantryman's Life after World War II". Should this be included in the References section as well?

Anyway, that is it from me. Good work so far and best of luck taking this higher. Thanks for your contribution. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and the very good list of deficiencies. It helped a lot. I'm still unsure of the proper format for footnote 6 and have not done the expansion yet, nor started discussing reviews but I was able to work on most of the other issues. 03:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nimitz class aircraft carrier

I have been worked on this article and it is currently a GA. However, I would like further input as to how it can be improved to A class or FA. Jhbuk (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Buggie111

Sorry if this is short, but all images need alts. Buggie111 (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Buggie, you should provide links to help out the editor. What he meant was WP:ALT -MBK₀₀₄ 04:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Which ones don't? I thought I'd covered them all before I started the PR. Jhbuk (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, eeveryone except the sidedrawing and the one in the infobox. Buggie111 (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed - they were there, just not properly formatted (with alt=). Jhbuk (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Now nothing is popping up. IDK what happened, might just be my comp. Buggie111 (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

What makes navysite.de reliable? It is done by two students who proclaim on teh page that they are amateurs. A large % of the refs are from this site YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is actually very little substantial information referenced solely under the site, just things like what deployments the ships were involved in - the referencing on the table actually came from the USN at first (I think), but I didn't put the refs in at that point for some reason. I later realised this and just put the first ones I found in, which is why there is a lump of them in the middle. Would it be better to just get rid of them in general, rather than using them to support other sources. Jhbuk (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC) I think I've done. There are still a couple of refs that need some extra info, but I'll do them later. Jhbuk (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that the only reference that might need replacing? Jhbuk (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Heinrich Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein

Hi, the article is nearing completion. I still haven't fully decided yet how to present his controversial personality yet. Note: he was perceived as arrogant, driven by perfection presumably driven by his will to protect the civilian population from the bomb war. Ideas are welcome MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Auntieruth55

I did a copy edit to fix the "germanisms"...The section on "Death" was confusing, and I tried to fix, but I may not have managed it properly. I will not be offended if you revert it. :)

Re his personality. Certainly this needs to come into the article. Possibly start with his difficulty with the radio operators. If his colleagues thought he was arrogant and cocky, then possibly itis worth saying that. Needs examples, of course, and cites, but I'm sure you have the latter if not the former. The story re Hitler is interesting also. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, as always. I did revert some of your edits in the "Death" section. I failed to make it clear that I was writing about two separate days 20 January and 21 January. Some of your changes mixed these things in such a way that they gave the impression to have happened on the same day. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

AH~ I thought they did happen on the same day. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I went back through the death and the part just above it. MUCH clearer now. I fixed a few phrases and simplified some of the sentences. You'll need to define Zahme Sau. (Tame pig? I don't get it). Also you have a link on Position lights that goes to a railway article. Landing lights? Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Belgium

I've listed this article for peer review because me and User:Dapi89 promoted it to GA status a while ago and I feel that this is very well written and is also totaly cited. We made sure that almost every sentence has a citation (Call it citation overload). IMHO, this aritcle meets the criteria for an FA and I would like the opinon of you all (the reviewers) before we nominte it.

Thanks, Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Quite a good article in my opinion. Good work so far. I have a few nitpicky points, which I'd probably bring up at ACR, but may as well bring up here as you are looking to take to FAC:

• according to the WP:Featured article tools there are 3 disambig links that need fixing (BEF, Divisions, Sedan);
• the images require Alt text per WP:ALT;
• the See also section is quite large, with terms that have already been linked in the prose. Generally I think if the terms have already been linked in prose, then there is no need to include them in a See also section;
• Note # 1 begins with a lower case letter, for consistency it should probably be capitalised;
• Can publisher information be added to the web sources that have been cited?
• in the lead the date format is incorrect (e.g. 10th and 12th of May), per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates_and_numbers)#Dates;
• in the lead, the clause "in the world" (pertaining to tank battles) seems redundant, as one would assume that tank battles have only occured on this world (yes, I am assuming we are alone). Perhaps a better term would be "largest tank battle in history up to that point", or a variation thereof;
• I'm not sure about capitalisation of "Allied Armies". This would imply that it is a proper noun, when I'm not sure that it actually is. I've not heard of a formation officially called the Allied Army;
• in the Belgium's strained alliances section, Maginot line, I think should be "Maginot Line" not "Maginot line" as it is a proper noun with "Line" being part of its official name;
• there is some implied inconsistency in terms, in the lead you use World War II, but in the Belgium's strained alliances subsection you use First World War. I'd say for consistency if the second one is World War II, the first one should be World War I (or if you want to call it Second World War, then consistency would probably require use of First World War);
• not all values have converts, for example in the 22-28 May section, (one mile penetration along a 13-front), another in the Belgian surrender section (total remaining area covered just 1,700 km), another in the German operational plans section ("300 metres alone"); can converts be added here perhaps?
• in the Casualties section (Belgian casualties subsection), "Wounded in action: 15,850 WIA", the "WIA" in this case is not needed as you already have "Wounded in action";
• some of the date ranges in the titles of works cited in the Bibliography don't have endashes, while others do;
• Please check capitalisation of terms such as "Panzer Division" and "Motorised infantry" (e.g. in German operational plans section), also "Brigade" (as in "one Brigade of Cyclist Frontier Guards) and "Corps" ("two Corps of two divisions") in the Belgian and Allied forces section. I believe that these should possibly be lower case as they are improper nouns in this case;
• Watch out for overlinking terms. British Expeditionary Force is one example of a term that is linked a couple of times;
• Check the format used for time in the article. In the 10-11 May subsection you have "00:10" then "01:30 am". All times should either have the "am/pm" designator or should be put into 24 hour format. Either is okay under the MOS, but consistency is the key.

Anyway, that is it. Good luck with taking the article further. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Auntieruth

Agree with above. Quite a good article, actually an exceptionally good article considering the subject matter. I read it more from the perspective of context than of the specific details of military actions. From that perspective, especially in the beginning, you have some problems to overcome. First, there is (and this is probably a source problem) the tendency for bias. Forexample, you refer to German aggression. Second, there is the problem of the pre-war and its importance in the conduct of the war as a whole. You've made a good start at that, but I suspect it would make some sense to invest space in summarizing the situation for the Belgians in the interwar period. For example, they had invested time and energy in the reconstruction of their country after massive damages in WWI. They had difficult political and economic alliances that were complicated by a number of problems: their dependence on France (unreliable and aggressive), geographic location (hilly to the south, location on the Maginot line, to the north, the Netherlands, which are flat and relatively no more than a speed bump). They have internal political issues to deal with, also. Paying for and fielding an army, developing an army that can actually defend the country, and so on.

I've reviewed several FAnoms at this point, and I suspect this article isn't quite ready. This is not to say you haven't done a good job, but you'll need to ratchet the prose up quite a bit before it will pass FA. There is also the completeness of content, and the clarity of the explanations. The content is all there, or mostly there, but its presentation and clarity is not where it needs to be. An expert audience would automatically fill in any gaps (although the expert might be annoyed that something is unclear or misleading), but you're not writing for the expert audience. I'd recommend working out some of the glitches Rupert and I have brought up, and then consider submitting it for A class review in the Project before you take it further. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

OK thank you. I'll try to address the mistakes that you all have stated and then I'll go for an A-class review and then FA later on. I'll have to ask Dapi about the Bias as he is the largest contribuor to it. I am a semi=expert at the subject and I have a few sources but I mostly leave that to Dapi89. Anyway, thnaks for all of the feedback guys.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Rod Serling

I just re-wrote the majority of this article, including a major expansion of his military career. His military experiences influenced his writing, so there are also a few mentions of the war throughout, but I'm interested in any comments on the military section. Feel free to edit and expand as you see fit, so long as it is sourced. Sabiona (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Just a few comments from me for you to do with as you like. Just cosmetic really, as I can't really comment on the content:

• according to the Featured article tool there is one disambig link that needs fixing (Hugo);
• according to the Featured article tools two external links are dead (see here [27]);
• in the Postwar life section there are a couple of non-wikified footnotes (e.g. [54] and [31]) that should be converted to proper inline references using "<ref></ref>" mark up;
• only one of the images has alt text per WP:ALT, the others will need it too;
• be careful capitalising ranks, per Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Military terms ranks should only be capitalised when used as proper nouns. One example of incorrect capitalisation is "Private" in the second last paragraph of the Miltiary service section (sentence beginning "Serling, still a Private...");
• pages ranges in the citations should have endashes per WP:DASH;
• citations # 10 and 11 appear to be to the same source, they could be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS;
• the web sources cited in Citations # 1 and 13 should be embedded so the url chains don't show;
• web citations should have accessdates and publisher details (# 2 and 69 don't have this information);
• a couple of the links in the External links are just url chains, they could be embedded so the chains don't appear. This can be done using a template such as {{cite web}};
• suggest moving the Further reading section below the References, as the References section would seemingly be more important to the reader as they have been specifically cited. Also that is the format modelled in WP:CITE;
• there is incosistency in your citation style. Sometimes you have used "p." for page (e.g Citation # 34), other times "Pg" (e.g. Citation # 68);
• in the Radio section there are curly quotation marks, however, per MOS:QUOTE#Quotations on straight, unstylised quotation marks should be used.

Good work so far, by the way. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ecuadorian–Peruvian territorial dispute of 1857-1860

Hi, this is the first military history article I've put a lot of work into, and I'd like to know what further improvements can be made. Thanks! AniRaptor2001 (talk) 05:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

EyeSerene

Congratulations on producing such an interesting and well-researched article. Just a few observations to do with as you will...

• Curly quotes should be used sparingly and only in certain circumstances, according to WP:MOSQUOTE. It might be better to use blockquotes or {{quote}} (or even simple quote marks as they're fairly short quotations).
• There's a ref tag in "1857 and 1858: beginnings of conflict" that needs fixing
• I sometimes got lost with the who's who while reading, particularly in the lead. For example, "By late 1859, power was divided between General Guillermo Franco, in the city of Guayaquil, and a provisional government in Quito headed by Gabriel García Moreno" - is this Peru or Ecuador? I wonder if more descriptive sub-section titles might be helpful in assisting a reader to keep track?
• The lead mentions the Battle of Guayaquil twice - the first is slightly confusing because it seems to imply this was part of the dispute, which is then contradicted. Personally I'd probably remove "however, Franco's government was later defeated by forces commanded by García Moreno and General Juan José Flores at the Battle of Guayaquil in September 1860." altogether.
• It might be helpful to include a brief explanation/translation of terms like "Real Cédula", "Caudillo" etc the first time they're used - I don't think it's good to encourage a reader too strongly to jump out of an article.
• Is there more information for the final sentence of the article ("The long dispute thus produced no favorable result for Peru, and the ongoing territorial dispute between the two countries remained unresolved.") How long did it remain unresolved? Can it be cited?

I hope your find these comments helpful, and thank you for submitting your article to Milhist's peer review. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 12:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

• Some of your cites have an inconsistent format. Some have "p.X" and some "p. X". Also some are "P & VD" others are "P; VD" YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Emil Lang (fighter ace)

Please review the article and assess for B-class as well. His personal background is very thin so I'd appreciate pointers to references that may shed more light on his private life. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66

Comments

• What unit was he in as a transport pilot?

done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Place of publication needed for most references.

Strange, I only found two omissions for Osprey publishing which are now fixed. Most to me means more than 50%. How do you define most? MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The Thomas book still needs one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Auntieruth

Again, you amaze me. I took the liberty of adding some commas, and fixing a sentence or two that had some germanisms, and a couple of MOS quirks. Nicely done. Do you have more on him? Is there any data on the typical age of pilots, which would allow you to expand that part of the article more? Some of your other articles have contextualized the careers of these men better, with some additional information about what was happening generally in the war at that point. Did Lang marry (if you have that, I apologize, but I missed it). Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ian Rose

Nice article (what I'd expect)...! Aside from the copyediting I performed, just a few things:

• Don't think you need capitalise and italicise flying ace. In fact I usually see it simply linked and nothing else. Personally I wouldn't bother with the A flying ace or fighter ace is... bit either because the term is linked and it's fairly common, but I know you've done it elsewhere so you may want to leave it for consistency's sake.
• The pic of him with Hitler and Goering could stand enlarging as there's a fair bit of detail in it.
• Concur with Ruth about any personal details or other information. Generally GAs go into a bit more depth than this in my experience. I mean if we know he didn't marry, for instance, perhaps best we spell that out since at his age you'd certainly have expected it.
• Award for German Cross in Gold (25 November 1943) isn't cited.
• Do I assume you've consistently used "(flying ace)" as a dab for this series of articles? If there's enough precedence, fair enough, but I know for Commonwealth pilots we tend to use "(RAF officer)", "(RAAF officer)", etc, not distinguishing whether they're aces or not.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Military history of Australia during World War I

I am nominating this article for peer review as it has been listed as the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight with a view to taking it to FA class by another user, although I am the main contributor (of course, however, there have been a number of other editors who have worked consistently on the article also and who have been invaluable in bringing it to where it is now). It is currently listed as a GA and has been previously been peer reviewed. Before taking the leap, I would like to see what the liability is before getting involved in an ACR or FAC, so am requesting opinions about what would be needed to get it to these levels. All comments welcome. Cheers. (Prior peer review here). — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth

• They brought kangaroos with them to Egypt?? That is... incredible! Sorry. Back to the serious point of reviewing!
• I have a DVA book called Australians in Britain - Two World Wars which has some WWI stuff. Might that be of interest?
• I also have a book that contains listings of the Australian command structure during WWI - would that be too detailed for this article?
• I see that the Australian War Memorial is mentioned, but is there room to mention other war memorials with Australian connections? There is the Villers-Bretonneux Memorial, the V.C. Corner Australian Cemetery and Memorial, the Fromelles (Pheasant Wood) Military Cemetery, and Lone Pine Commonwealth War Graves Commission Cemetery in Gallipoli, which is a start, but it is easy to add too much in this direction (there is also the Australian War Memorial in London).
• Overall, some of the sections feel a bit long. Is the aim to have the shorter actions and campaigns covered less, or to cover each area and branch of the armed services with about an equal amount of text?

May add more comments later. Carcharoth (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I will wait before I do anything too drastic about the section sizes as I want to get a number of opinions before forging ahead. Cheers, though. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth. IMO the command structure is probably too detailed for this article, but I would encourage you to add it to First Australian Imperial Force if you feel so inclined. Likewise I think listing all the memorials may be a bit much also. They could be included in the articles for the battles themselves though (if they haven't already been added). Lastly I think the relative importance of each topic/battle/service should determine the level of coverage, not an arbitrary allocation of equal space to all topics. In this regard I think the article probably strikes this balance. Anyway thats just my two cents, others may disagree of course. ChoraPete (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

ChoraPete

Personally I think this article is quite good. Only a few minor points:

• There are some very short paragraphs which should probably be linked with other sentences to form real paragraphs, or expanded on to achieve the same;
• Maybe expand battle of Krithia and Turkish counter attack sections a little in the Gallipoli section
• Maybe the section on Es Salt could be expanded (just a couple more sentences perhaps), likewise for the battles of Rafa and and of Romani in the Egypt and Palestine section;
• The see also link to the article on the Australian official histories could be worked into the prose (IVO where you mention Bean probably) and then this could be eliminated and Done
• Is there anyway of 'right-aligning' the table at the end to remove the whitespace?

Anyway that is all from me for now, if I think of anything else I will let you know. Good luck. ChoraPete (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for the review. I will see what I can do to address these. Thanks. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

This article is in excellent shape, and is probably nearly ready for an A class nomination. As an over-arching suggestion, I think that the article might be too detailed, and you should look to move some material into subsidiary articles. In particular, many relatively small actions of the first years of the war involving battalions and brigades are covered in what seems to be excessive detail compared to the succinct descriptions of the AIFs division and corps-level operations in France from 1916 onwards. My specific suggestions for improvements are:

• Some maps would be useful if they're available
• The single paragraph sections should be integrated into neighboring sections
• The lead photo lacks visual impact - while its a featured picture, this seems to be due to the rarity of high resolution pictures of World War I rather than any implicit value (disclaimer: I voted against it during its FPC). I'd suggest that it be replaced with something which more strongly grabs readers' attention.
• The first two paragraphs of the lead are a bit too detailed - this should be a high level summary of Australia's involvement in the war
• The 'German New Guinea' section is too detailed and should be trimmed to about three or four paragraphs
• I don't think that the first brigade commanders need to be named in the 'First Australian Imperial Force' section, particularly as this isn't carried through the remainder of the article
• The expansion of the AIF is repeated at the end of the 'Evacuation' section and start of the 'Egypt and Palestine' section
• Reference 73 ("The Turkish Rout at Romani — from a British illustrated magazine, published September 1916") seems like an odd choice given the availability of many post-war works. The claim that the Turks were seeking to destroy the Canal also is a bit surprising - was this even possible?
• 'Imperial Mounted Division' shouldn't be in italics
• The photo captioned simply 'Charge of the 4th Light Horse Brigade' is potentially misleading given that there's been a long running (and as far as I know, unsettled) dispute over whether it is authentic.
• There's a bit of over linking in the 'Fighting around Gaza, 1917' section - 'Australian Mounted Division' and 'Beersheba' are linked twice
• The statement that "Five infantry divisions of the AIF saw action on the Western Front in France and Belgium, leaving Egypt in March 1916" is over-simplistic and not correct: this ignores the many corps level units and the 3rd Division was trained in England until December 1916
• The paragraph on the 1st Division's mechanical transport probably belongs in the article on the division and isn't worth more than a passing mention in this article
• The 'Royal Australian Navy operations' section repeats some of the content of the 'German New Guinea' section
• The 'Internment, censorship and other special measures' and 'Economy' sections are probably too detailed for an article on the military history of Australia during the war, and could be split off to provide an excellent starting point for an article on the home front.
• The simple table in the 'Statistics' section should be converted to prose
• The entries in the 'Footnotes' section need citations. Footnotes d and f could be removed (the first isn't necessary and the second is one person's view of a hotly contested topic which largely falls outside the scope of this article) Nick-D (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Nick. Some excellent points. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ian Rose

Concur with other reviewers that this is a very good article as is, and probably quite close to A-Class standard. I'll try and review in detail when I can, particularly the air corps section.

• Just as an initial comment, I agree with Nick that the lead picture lacks impact. The first two iconic images that come to my mind—which surprisingly don't appear in the article anywhere else as yet—are File:1stAustralianDivisionHooge5October1917.jpeg and File:Chateau Wood Ypres 1917.jpg. The Nek painting and the photo of Beersheba are certainly iconic as well, but a bit specialised for the lead IMO. Any other suggestions? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Chateau Wood Ypres 1917.jpg would be a great choice, especially as it's also an FP. The Australian War Memorial's wonderful book Contact says that it "remains one of the most recognisible and widely reproduced images of this landscape, which has come to serve as an emblem of the Great War". Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Both are excellent suggestions, leaning towards File:Chateau Wood Ypres 1917.jpg. ChoraPete (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool - of the two, Ypres would be my preference as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm pretty happy with the AFC section. I'd consider mentioning a few more names in the text, however, in addition to Petre and McNamara, namely Richard Williams, Oswald Watt, and Harry Cobby:
  • Williams and Watt should logically appear after the line Thousands of aircrew from the other Dominions ... without gaining the benefits of command and the administrative experience which came with an independent air service, as they illustrate the contrasting situation for AFC men, namely that they both commanded wings (Williams temporarily leading the RAF's Palestinian Brigade as well). I can add the words and/or provide you a ref, if you like.
  • Cobby should be mentioned as the AFC's leading ace of the war, with 29 victories.
  • You could also drop the names of Robert Little and Stan Dallas as the top-scoring Australian aces of the war and as examples of Aussies flying with the Brits, but that may be overdoing it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Took the liberty of copyediting the Half-Flight subsection, adding a new ref. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, Ian. Some more excellent suggestions. Any and all help with the article is appreciated. I'm a bit under the pump this week in real life, so won't be able to put much time into the article until the weekend, unfortunately. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Friedrich Geißhardt

Please review the article. I am looking for additional references that could give more insight into his personal life and improvements on wording. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ranger Steve

Just a few early thoughts MisterBee:

• Translation - I don't know if there's a policy on this, its just off the top of my head, but a large number of readers probably wouldn't know the German 'ß' character. There might be a translation convert thingy or something like that available.

good point MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Given the importance of the award, it might be worth saying something like ... was awarded the Knights Cross of the Iron Cross, Germany's highest award for bravery on the battlefield, in 1941... in the lead.

done MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• There are several stubby sentences that could be joined to make better prose - for example: Geißhardt is credited with 102 victories in 642 combat missions, including 37 close air support missions. He achieved 63 of his victories over the Eastern front. In his total are at least seventeen Spitfires. becomes: In 642 combat missions, which included 37 close air support missions, Geißhardt was credited with 102 aerial victories. Sixty three of those were achieved on the Eastern Front and the rest included at least seventeen Supermarine Spitfires.

Hope it helps! Ranger Steve (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

One more - the type of planes he flew isn't mentioned until he lands one and subsequently dies. I'm sure this would get picked up as the article expands anyway, but thought I'd mention it. Also, it seems a bit reversed to mention that he was flying in a schwarm, but the plane he was flying only gets mentioned as he lands it! Might look better if it was structured along the lines of ... was flying an FW190 in Major Prillers Schwarm when.... if you see what I mean. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Auntieruth55

Beginning of a neat article. It's interesting that this man's humility was not equal to some of the other Aces you've written about.  ;) Just a couple of things. You're missing some English translations in parens, and in some cases, they aren't consistent--for example, the award is in English and the German in parens. Also, contractions (hadn't) probably should be spelled out. Have you looked at books about the bomber wing defense that wounded him? They might have something on that flight. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Looks pretty good to me, I only have a couple of comments:

• the sources listed in the Bibliography have slightly inconsistent format (some have the date in brackets next to author's name, but the last two have dates closer to the end). This could be fixed by formatting all of them with the {{cite book}} template;
• there is one disambig link according to the Featured article tools (Siege of Malta);
• if possible it would be good to get a little bit more information on the subject's early life (e.g. parents names, father's occupation, any siblings, where he went to school). Of course, this may not be available, but just a suggestion. If you can get that info, I suggest breaking it into a separate section called "Early life";

Anyway, that's it from me. Cheers. Keep up the good work! — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Massachusetts in the American Civil War

Looking to nominate this one for either GA or A class, not quite sure yet. Any help, suggestions, etc. with the article would be much appreciate. I expanded this article significantly as part of the American Civil War Task Force to-do list. Thanks! Historical Perspective (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Just a few comments from me:

• the images could have Alt text per WP:ALT;
• quotation marks should be straight, not curly per WP:MOS (there is an example in the Minutemen of 61 section);
• last sentence of the first paragraph of the Antebellum section needs a citation;
• last part of 54th Massachusettes Infantry section needs a citation;
• last paragraph of General Officers section needs a citation.

Otherwise looks pretty good to me. Well done. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I appreciate your help (not just on this one, but on several articles). I've made the following changes:

• The alt text was in there, but I had the syntax wrong. Silly mistake. I've fixed it.
• Got the quotes. Time for a tangent: first time I heard somebody refer to "dumb" quotation marks (straight) vs. "smart" quotation marks (curled), was a copy editor working on a publication I had written who told me to "take out all the dumb quotes." I was very insulted for a moment until I realized what he was talking about. :)
• Inserted citations in the places you noted.

Best, Historical Perspective (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yazoo Pass Expedition

This is a new article that I think meets B-class criteria, but I welcome independent opinions on the stuff I have written. PKKloeppel (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Saberwyn

A couple of observations following a brief glance:

• The lead section needs to be split into multiple paragraphs

Done. PKK

• What was the aftermath of the expedition? What happened to the forces on each side after the expedition? Did the events lead to any changes in Union or Confederate strategy/tactics? Was there an impact on other events of the war?

Strangely, the expedition had no particular consequences, at least that historians have commented on. It seems to be regarded as merely one of the probes that Grant initiated until he hit on the correct approach of attacking Pemberton's left flank. I have my own ideas, which is why I got interested in it, but (a) the effects were on the Navy after the war, and (b) (more importantly) it would interject a point of view into the article. PKK

• The article needs to be categorised: I'm no expert on US Civil War history, so I'll leave it for those more knowledgable.

Call this a blunder; I just forgot about categories. I have added some. PKK

More when/if I think of them.

-- saberwyn 05:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. See what you think of my corrections. PKKloeppel (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Liking so far. If you can't find any sourced info about the aftermath, that's fair enough, but keep your eyes open. You never know when you'll wander across a new source and be plesantly suprised. -- saberwyn 08:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Just a few comments from me. Otherwise looks quite good:

• The references could be formatted with the templates {{cite book}} or

My opinion is that the use of this template is more trouble than it is worth. PKK

• Should the date in the infobox be a range (e.g. 3 February – 12 April 1863)?

Dead right. Done. PKK

• Titles for works/books should be capitalised per Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Composition titles

Done. PKK

Anyway, well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for the attention. PKKloeppel (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Anotherclown

• The lead should be reworked as it is currently is a little lopsided. Perhaps turn it into two paragraphs
  
• More images would be nice (but not required for B class)
  
• Measurements should be given in both metric and imperial using the convert template, e.g. {{convert|2|mi|km}} ensuring that you use the adj=on parameter for adjectives
  
• Consider using the author, date, page number format for short references (i.e. notes), with the full citation in the References section
  
• Structure could be improved a little per WP:MILMOS. For instance many similar articles use the following headings:
  

1.The background. Why did it take place? Which campaign did it belong to? What happened previously?

2.The prelude. What forces were involved? How did they arrive at the battleground? Was there a plan?

3.A description of the battle. What tactics were used?

4.The aftermath. Who won, if anyone? What were the casualties? Was there a pursuit or followup? What happened next? How did the battle affect the course of the war?

Anyway that's it from me. If you have any questions please ask. Anotherclown (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply:

1. Am I being blindsided? I was criticized earlier for not having enough paragraphs in the lead.

2. I will look for pictures, but I have none at hand.

3. Metric conversions have now been supplied (unless I missed some). I will not use the {{convert}} template, however, because it has too many bugs.

4. I prefer to give a more extensive reference. So long as this is permitted by Wikipedia, I will continue.

5. I do not understand the last comment. I think the article has all the information you suggest; can you point out what you want?

PKKloeppel (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Anotherclown's concern re: the lead is that the first two paragraphs are a on the small side, while the third is a bit meaty. Instead of rearranging things, may I suggest that a little bit of the detail be stripped back from that third para and (if necessary) re-added to the body.

I personally prefer the "last, title, p. " format for citations; although while longer, it makes it much easier to identify the source. The style is accepted (AHS Centaur and Attack on Sydney Harbour made it to FA with refs in this style). Might be an idea though to split them up so that each individual citation has its own ref tag (so insead of <ref>Shea and Winschel, ''Vicksburg Is the Key'', pp. 68–69. ORN ser. I, v. 24, p. 258 states that the date of building the levee was 1853.</red>, you get <ref>Shea and Winschel, ''Vicksburg Is the Key'', pp. 68–69</ref><ref>ORN ser. I, v. 24, p. 258 states that the date of building the levee was 1853.</red>)... it'll make it eaiser when the article expands and you find the same citation being used multiple times. -- saberwyn 21:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey PKK, its a peer review and they are suggestions. Take them it that spirit... if you disagree whatever. Anotherclown (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

To all of you gentlemen: Sorry if my words appear to be snippy, as I meant my comments to be taken in the same way that you have given yours - you have ideas, and this is why I accept or reject them. (The exception is that concerning the {{convert}} template, which I consider unworthy of the powder it would take to blow it to hell. But that's a different story, and this is not the place to present my argument.) Anyway, thanks to Saberwyn, I now see what Anotherclown was saying in his first suggestion. But I still do not understand the last. PKKloeppel (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries... I was being a big girls blouse anyway. Ok to clarify my final point: one way of structuring the article that you might consider is to use the format suggested in the WP:MILMOS (i.e. background, prelude, battle and aftermath). Although in may ways you have covered off on most of this already (except the aftermath), without actually using these headings. Anyway its a minor point and it is not something that would effect a B class rating etc.Anotherclown (talk) 07:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

One final point. There is inconsistency with ranks in the article, as in many places you write ranks in full while in other places they are abbreviated. Personally I would write them all in full as I think abbreviations detract from encyclopeadic style but I can't back this up with wikipolicy. What ever you choose it needs to be consistent. Anotherclown (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd go for full rank, because Average Joe Civilian isn't going to know what a lt cdr or a maj gen is without prompting. -- saberwyn 08:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Concerning abbreviations of ranks: Both of you are correct, and I have written the ranks out in full. (The error was even worse than you implied. I did not use the currently approved form for the abbreviations, LCDR, MGEN. If you think people don't understand lt. cdr., what will you say about the newer usage?)

• I now must raise a question about something that puzzles me. I see that all three of you, Saberwyn, Australian Rupert, and Anotherclown, are Australians. Does this represent some kind of conspiracy? (By the way, I don't speak Australian. What does 'big girl's blouse' mean?)
• Anyway, thanks to all of you for your help. I hope we will work together again in the future. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I blame coincidence. -- saberwyn 20:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah coincidence I'm sure. Pretty much means being an emotional woman... argh that sounds bad when I write that doesn't it... sorry I mean no offence to our female contributors... Anotherclown (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hal Jespersen (talk)

Your articles are always well written, so I will limit myself to two formatting items. First, it is the almost universal style for Wikipedia American Civil War articles to use American formatted dates -- July 4, 1863, rather than 4 July 1863. Second, the vast majority of these articles use abbreviated ranks, just as most books, magazines, and newspapers do. For the one percent of English speakers who do not understand that Maj. Gen. is the standard English-language abbreviation for major general and would be mystified if they saw it in the New York Times, we link the first usage, such as Maj. Gen. or (Maj. Gen. for a Confederate). Some authors spell out the rank the first time, but use the abbreviations thereafter. Spelling them out in full each time is certainly allowable, but very rare in Wikipedia American Civil War articles. We do not use the modern DOD abbreviations because they are much less recognized by the general public. Refer to guidance in the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition, section 15.15. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Hal: It's been a while since we have met, and I am always glad to read your comments, particularly when you put them in such flattering terms. As for the substance of your remarks:

• Personally, I would have used the abbreviations for ranks, and my original text did so, but when two of my advisers asked me to change, I did so. It is no big deal to me, they were being helpful, and so why not? It makes for some clumsy passages, but there are probably worse sins in my edits than being clumsy.
• You are correct about Wikipedia style concerning dates, and I will make the changes. (With protest. I think that the Wikipedia premise is faulty, that the month-day-year ordering is general in the US. That's the way it is in commercial transactions, but in a lot of other areas, such as the military, the customary order is day-month-year. Don't worry, I know that this is a battle that I have already lost; I just want to let off some steam.)

Well, this is not the place for a general discussion of date formats, but I would point out to you that the "American" version of dates corresponds directly to the speaking style of Americans. If you asked someone on Main Street for the date, they would reply in almost all cases "February 15th," rather than "15 February" or "15th of February," as might be the case in Europe. This is also the reason for the American MM/DD/YY style of abbreviated date. There are certainly alternative date formats used in the military, in spreadsheets, and in some commercial transactions, but we use these dates in ACW articles because they mirror the usage in the vast majority of histories of the war (as well as the historical documents from the war itself). Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I would like to link to this article from the Vicksburg campaign by a {{main}} hook at the appropriate place. If you think that is not appropriate, raise your objections here.

PKKloeppel (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Make that a {{further}} hook rather than {{main}}; that is for consistency with other such links in the article. PKKloeppel (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No objection from me. You might also consider using the bayou campaign overview map from that article in yours. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have linked the map into the article, thank you very much for the suggestion. Is the placement OK? PKKloeppel (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be my browser, but the map in the infobox seems too big... maybe set to 300px rather than 400px? The infobox currently takes up half my screen... If people want to see the map in detail they can just click on it. Anyway its just a though. Anotherclown (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You can adjust the size of the image using the "px" (pixels width) parameter there. I changed it to 300px to match the standard infobox size. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Rin tin tin 1996

It doesn't seem to explain why the campaign was important enough to have an article

It is rather hard to answer this objection, as it was indeed an operation that did not accomplish its goals and had no profound effect on tactics. Yet, it is mentioned in almost all histories of the Navy in the Civil War, and that should count for something. The argument that sways me is that it is a marker in Grant's career, showing how he (almost uniquely among generals of his era) was willing and able to work with the Navy; I can't assert that in the article, because I don't find it stated in any of my sources, even though it is fairly obvious. PKKloeppel (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This expedition was one of seven failed initiatives that Grant attempted prior to his successful Vicksburg Campaign starting in May 1863, so it is notable as part of that group. Its failure is one of the reasons it is not very well known, but it is also very difficult to visit, so the average Civil War aficionado has little familiarity with it. (Although I might put in a plug for the Blue and Gray Education Society, which has a comprehensive series of Vicksburg trips, and this particular expedition is covered next month: http://www.blueandgrayeducation.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=167:grants-road-to-destiny-part-3-the-vicksburg-campaign-bayou-expeditions-1863-detailed-itinerary&catid=44:programs-general&Itemid=55.) Arguably, Steele's Bayou expedition was Grant's initiative that came closest to success. Close, but no cigar. Hal Jespersen (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Buggie111 (talk)

The article looks great in terms of accuracy, spelling, format etc..., but I'd like to see some refs in the lead. If you look at nearly any article on en.wiki, theyv'e got about 2 or 3 refs in the lead section. No t to be harsh, but try to fix that. If that's already been brought up, than the entire thing is fine. Buggie111 (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The standard that we use -- at least for the vast majority of American Civil War articles -- is that the lead section is a summary of the following text and therefore footnoted citations are very rare in that section. About the only time we deviate fromthat is when there is something really unusual or controversial that causes a lot of commotion among reviewers. Hal Jespersen (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan (2001-present)

This is a huge article that was a former FAC and I think it can be moved up on the quality scale. I think with several sets of eyes this can work its way up to FAC again. Marine79 (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

I welcome any attempt to improve this article, although I fear that due to its high visibility/primacy of the topic it may prove difficult. These are my comments, they are mainly only technical in nature:

• the lead should only be up to four paragraphs long, thus this is probably too long;
• a number of paragraphs are without citation (e.g. Afghan Civil War section) and there are several citation needed tags;
• citations should come after punctuation per WP:PAIC, there are several examples where citations have been placed inside punctuation, e.g. once in the lead and elsewhere in the Protests section;
• the images need alt text per WP:ALT
• per the Featured article tools, there are many dab links that need sorting: [28]

 Done

• citations to the same source should be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS;
• many of the citations are currently just barelinked urls, these could be formatted using the template {{cite web}} and details such as publisher and accessdate included;
• quotes should be straight, not stylised (there is an example in the lead “is not an absolute”)
• where dashes are being used like parentheses, they should either be spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes, the article currently has spaced endashes, unspaced emdashes, spaced emdashes and just hyphens;
• Citation # 319 looks like it has been vandalised with "MS was here" Done

Anyway, that is it from me for the moment. Good luck with improving the article. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I haven't been a contributor for this article but I saw it sitting as a Start class and figured it could be reviewed some and re-assessed. I'll try to straighten things up where I can but I'm new concerning big edits so the offer is out for anyone that can help make these changes!Marine79 (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Hopefully others will be keen to get involved too. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

Thanks for taking an interest in this article - it's going to be a big, but very rewarding, job to move it up the quality scale! My suggestions for improvements are:

• The article is too strongly focused on US and, to a lesser extent, western perspectives of the war - its character as an Afghan civil war is seriously under-stated in my view
• The article is much too long and has an overly complex structure
• The lead is much too long
• The article is somewhat under-illustrated
• The 'Air campaigns' section is too focused on hardware, and could do with better coverage of tactics
• A lot of terms are repeatedly linked
• The infobox is a mess - it contains way too many commanders and countries and the casualty figures are a bit dubious
• A lot of material isn't cited, and some references don't appear reliable
• The article doesn't appear to discuss the profound impact the invasion of Iraq had on this war
• Some of the article appears to be regurgitating dubious claims made by the US military - for instance, its stated that Operation Moshtarak is "the first operation where Afgan forces lead the coalition" when the New York Times story provided as a reference actually says that this claim by the military doesn't reflect the reality on the ground (the story states "the operation has been led in almost every significant sense by American officers and troops.") Nick-D (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River

The battle that decided the outcome of the Korean War, only to be obscured by the Battle of Chosin Reservoir that happened two days later. This got to be the most challenging project I have done so far, given that almost all of UN records were lost during the battle, plus the "bug out" myth that hides the full story of the US Eighth Army. Anyway, please review for content, POV, RS, etc for further improvements. Jim101 (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is a very solid article on an important topic. My suggestions for further improvements are:

• The lead is a bit short given the article's length

Will look into that, I'm still a bit hazy on how to write lead.

2x expansion.

• The footnotes need citations

footnote 1 and 4 are just a matter of translation issues between Chinese and English. put citations into the rest through

• The quotes at the start of the sections look a bit gimmicky, and place undue weight on these interpretations

I believe the quote is used to describe how badly the UN miscalculated the number of Chinese before the battle. But since you put it this way, I'll go over my sources and restate the same idea.

Removed for now.

• I would have thought that the Onjong and Unsan battles destroyed the UN forces' left flank, not the right

I believe in all three articles, I stated that the UN right flank collapsed, can you provide me with a passage that gave the opposite ideas?

• The article needs a copy edit - I spotted quite a few typos

Got it, always a problem for me.

• "Chinese reconnaissance teams resorted to sweet musics and dancing to lure the Americans into the open" needs some further explanation - where the Chinese pretending to be civilians, or mad? (or both)

The way the writers put it, a Chinese reconnaissance company first marched into the no mans' land with no disguise and with the Americans watching, few guys started playing flute while the rest danced around the flute players. The suprised G Company then replied by firing at the reconnaissance company, but the Chinese ran before the Americans could inflict any casualties. After a short while, the Chinese mortars and machine guns hit all the American positions that opened fire, and by the morning the G company only has one survivors left. All my PLA studies just stated this is how Chinese conduct reconnaissance - by luring using tricks like this.

Reword it a little bit. Jim101 (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• "By the end of the battle, the Eighth Army was reduced from its original three corps to four divisions and two brigades" is imprecise as the Corps headquarters remained in existance - the issue is the number of divisions lost and put out of action

Will look into the issue. All sources hinted that the US 25th Division were badly mauled, and the US 2nd Division and the ROK II Corps were completely destoryed. But the problem is that the UN records are very fragmented for this battle, plus South Koreans did not report their casualty numbers. It requires additional research to confirm this hint.

Clarfied which UN formations were out of action in the aftermath of the battle. Jim101 (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• None of the see also links appears all that relevant to this article as they cover much larger topics. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed

Thanks for the feedback. Jim101 (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sinyavin Offensive (1942)

(old peer review here)

I would like to improve this article further to nominate it for GA and later A-Class. I think I have done everything from the previous peer review almost a year ago. I guess the weak points are style, but I am not sure. D2306 (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Good work so far. Just a few presentation suggestions from me as I have no content knowledge:

• per WP:MOSHEAD the capitalisation of the "German Plans" and "Soviet Plans" headers is incorrect. It should be "German plans" and "Soviet plans";Done
• the first paragraph in the Aftermath is uncited and should at least have a citation at the end of the paragraph;Done
• the citations for the order of battle are a little unclear to me. It might be clearer if a citation was placed after the "German" and "Soviet" headers in The order of battle section;Done
• in the Notes section "Glantz p. 212-213" is different from "Meretskov pp. 301–302". Presentation style here should be the same, thus I suggest adding an endash and using "pp." where multiple pages are used as the source;Done
• Citation # 23 "Haupt W. Army Group North. The Wehrmacht in Russia 1941–1945" is presented differently to all the others. It should be the same;Done
• Is there a page number that could be added for Citation # 25 "Haupt"?
• I think the three columns for the References makes it a little hard for the reader. I would suggest just one column for the References. Three columns for the Notes is okay, though;Done
• in the References section the dates for "Manstein (1955 (2004))" are a little awkward. You can show these two dates more cleanly by using the following code "|origyear=1955 |year=2004" within the cite book template. This will show up as "(2004) [1955]". DoneAustralianRupert (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • All done except for the page number for "Haupt". I no longer have the book, so I can't get the page number. If you think it's better I could simply say the operation was due to begin on September 14 and cite Isayev for it. D2306 (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think that would be best if you want to put it up for GA. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Done

Battle of Resaca

I updated this with help from Suggest bot using info from Friends of Resaca Battlefield link (ref 2). I would like to know, after I add the remainder of the info to the article, what else should be done? [[29]]

Cheers,

Buggie111 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

After you add "the remainder of the info to the article," which is fatally short now, you should ask for the peer review to evaluate what you have added. If you aspire to write a good article or a higher classification, read a few of those battle articles that have achieved that state and see the levels of detail, citations, maps, images, etc., that are considered acceptable. Check out WP:WikiProject Military history/Showcase. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Anotherclown

• Images should have alt text added, see WP:ALT
• The article is unbalanced at the moment with more focus on the background than the actual battle (although I note you say you are going to add more)
• Add more detail to the 'battle' section as per above
• Lead is too short and is repeatative e.g you start two sentences with 'the battle'...
• Date format is inconsistent, in some places you use May 9, in others May 9th
• The article is completely uncited... please add inline citations (at least one at the end of every paragraph) per WP:MOS

Once you have done that I would suggest requesting a b class assessment at WP:MHA#REQ or another peer review.

Good luck. Anotherclown (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

• Citations to web sources can be formatted/tidied up using the template {{cite web}};
• Currently the sources that are listed in the References section would probably be more appropriately contained in an External links section;
• On my screen there is a large amount of whitespace in the Background section due to the location of the first image below the infobox, which could be fixed by moving the image to the left or down, perhaps (it might only be an issue on my screen, however);
• When you add more detail to the Battle section, I suggest that you try to use a mixture of paper (books) and web sources for balance;
• I think alt text can be added to the image in the infobox pretty much in the same way that you've added it to the other images, just by adding "|alt=" beside the size parameter in the mark up code.

Anyway, those are my suggestions. Happy editing. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Marine79

• I fixed a handful of spelling and grammar errors.
• If there is a battle map or diagram floating around somewhere that would be good to have for visual reference of all the locations mentioned in the article.
• I agree that the battle section is pretty small compared to the background.
• The other unit commanders in the article need to have their rank included.
  

Marine79 (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the stuff listed into account, and will do so when I have time. I would like to close this review. Buggie111 (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Liberation of Arnhem

I totally rewrote this article when I came across it last year and after a bit of work I got it to GA. I read another book with some useful info over Christmas and have extended the article a fair bit, using more detail from a few older sources as well. I've never taken an article above GA before and would welcome a few opinions on where this one could go.

A few specifics I'd welcome advice on:

• Scope: This is pretty much all the sources I've found for a battle that normally only gets a single line in most Second World War history books. With that in mind I wonder how much more it can grow and whether there's enough here for A class or FA.
• Alt text: My first try so I'd welcome some opinions, or if you can do better please go ahead.
• The map: I can't seem to create good SVG files. One that I used looked significantly worse on my computers when I inserted it into the article than the JPEG I'm currently using. If anyone can convert this to a viewable SVG I'd be very grateful.
• Corry as a source: Corry's work is an official Army HQ Report from the 50's and is perhaps a little close to a Primary source (although it might be secondary as he bases his work on real primary sources like war diaries, orders etc...). I've culled his cites a fair bit now, so he's only used ten times.

Thanks in advance! Ranger Steve (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

I think that this is an excellent article on an interesting topic. Having worked on articles concerning topics for which there's no comprehensive sources, I think that I have some idea about how much work when into this. The broad range of sources you've drawn on speak for themselves. Accordingly, my suggestions for further improvement are all pretty minor:

• The article needs a copy edit to convert passive text into the active voice
• The article mainly focuses on the Allied side of the story - can more be added on the German experiences?
• The single paragraph sections should be combined into longer sections
• Arnhem is referred to as a 'city' in the lead and a 'town' in the 'The first battle of Arnhem' section
• The {{main}} template shouldn't be used for red links
• I don't think that the link to Operation Goldflake adds much given that article is presently only a sentence (though it does cover an interesting topic)
• The Canadian official history appears to be out of copyright, and there's an excellent map from it on Hyperwar you could add from here
• Does the British official history have any coverage of this battle? Nick-D (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much Nick, useful comments.

• I expected this. I need to leave the prose alone for a week or two and then reread it to be able to tackle it, so I'll do that soon.
• I really can't find any more about the German forces which is a shame. I like to try and balance articles, but all of my sources are rather predictably a little Allied orientated. While I was googling it I was a little flattered to find that this article appears to be the best a lot of other people can find as well! I've reworked a few sentences to try and change the perspective a little bit, but short of finding a good source I'm not sure what else I can do....

• I've had that happen to some articles I've worked on as well; it does make you realise that a lot of people read Wikipedia and it can be a great way of raising awareness of overlooked but significant historical incidents like this one. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Do you think I should do the Aftermath section as well?

• Yes, I think so. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed. It's a city, but most sources describe it as a town because of its small size at the time. Middlebrook actually states early on that he'll refer to it as a town throughout his book.
• I wondered about this when I did it, but I couldn't find anything about it on the template. I personally don't mind redlinks and I was hoping that this one might lead to someone creating an article about this area of the war that's fairly sparsely covered on wiki (doesn't seem to have worked yet!). Still, if you think it's more appropriate do you think something like a link here or here will be better?

• Neither of those links seems really appropriate. The liberation of Holland is a very viable topic for an article (from my understanding, its also somewhat controversial), so it might be best to not include a background link here until its created. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Done
• That's awsome, thanks. I'll investigate it later.
• That's a very good point. Apparently my local library has a copy so I'll check later this week.

• Let me know if you can't find a copy; my university library definitely has one. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again Nick, Ranger Steve (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ellis does give a bit more info than most books - two sentences more in fact! He does however have a footnote on the German defenders, so I'll add that to the article when I remember to take a pen to the library. I'll do some more editing on the article and integrate your other comments. Do you have any thoughts on my original concerns Nick? Ranger Steve (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• This upcoming book looks like it may be useful Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Anotherclown

Looks good so far. Just a drive by from me:

• You should probably use the 'convert' template for distances e.g. 3 kilometres (1.9 mi)
• There shouldn't be spaces between an emdash and text per WP:MOS
• The aftermath section seems like it has too many headings which makes it seem disjointed - its only a personal preference of course but I would consider turning into a couple of paragraphs with no sub headings.

I hope these suggestions help. Anotherclown (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much Anotherclown, and for your tidying of the article. I'll integrate your comments when I copyedit the page. If you drive by again, do you have any thoughts on my concerns listed above? Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify one of your points Anotherclown, I was actually using spaced endashes in the article, which is allowed under MoS (and I personally prefer it). I have gone through and inserted the correct HTML code in case they show up differently on other computers though. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair call. Anotherclown (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As it's been a month now I'll close this review and start incorporating the ideas into the article when I have time. Thanks gents. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

HMAS Sydney (R17)

Its been about a year since we had an aircraft carrier make the approach to FA, so I think we're about due for another one: namely the Royal Australian Navy birdfarm HMAS Sydney (R17).

The following issues are known, and any advice on solving them would be appreciated:

• The sections "1952-1958", "Fast Troop Transport (1958–1965)", and "1972–1973" need to be expanded (the latter most of all) or reworked into other parts of the article.
• Conversely, the sections dealing with the ship's Korean War and Vietnam War operations are on the long side: suggestions on how to trim down or split up these sections would be great.
• There are a couple of {{clarify}} and {{citation needed}} tags still in the article: I need to explain the former in a little more detail, and find more reliable and appropriate sources than the ones given in the latter cases.

Any other observations or comments towards improving the article are more than welcome.

I request permission to intersperse my replies with your comments... if you wish for my replies to be kept separate, please specify. -- saberwyn 05:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is an excellent article. As is common for your articles on warships, it's very detailed and you've made good use of the available free images. My suggestions for further improvements are:

• I think that the length of the coverage of the ship's war service is fine. This is similar to the weight given to it in the sources I've seen, and all the material is directly relevant to the ship.
• The fact that the Viscountess Astor's role in laying down the ship was ceremonial should be specified (eg, that she presided over the ceremony, or whatever)
  • Done.
• The statement that "These two carriers were the closest to completion at the end of World War II, and were finished without major deviation from the wartime construction plans." needs a cite
  • Having a bit of trouble there. The problem is I know it (or, more accurately, I know that the other three were heavily upgraded), but I can't find/refind a blatant cite for it.
• Does the complement of 1,100 include her air group?
  • I assume so, but will need to confirm. Update: The info came from an edition of Jane's Fighting Ships I have access to at the maritime museum, and/or Cassells The Capital Ships at a semi-local library. I won't have the opportunity to access either until next week.
    • I just checked Gillett's Australian & NZ Warships since 1946 book, and he provides a figure of 1343, but doesn't break this down at all (p. 20). Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
      • There's a bit of variance among the sources as to the exact ship's company, but the numbers in the article include the CAG.
• Some of the article's text is written in the passive voice (for example, "20th CAG embarked again during August, with Sydney performing exercises" - this could be 'The 20th CAG embarked again in August, and Sydney conducted exercises')
  • I'm probably too close to the text to see problems like this. I'll put it up at Logistics for copyediting.
• What drawbacks lead to Sydney not going to Korea in 1950?
  • The source does not specify: "There is some evidence that consideration was given to sending Sydney to add to the naval air strength [following problems with Theseus] but the drawbacks were so overwhelming that the idea was dropped."
• What's meant by saying that the strikes near Wonsan were "later revealed to be a demonstration for British admiral Sir Guy Russell"?
  • Source says "...demonstration for the benefit of..." and only elaborates to the point that those on Sydney didn't know that they were flying those missions for that puropse. I don't think that info adds that much, particularly without elaboration as to what was demonstrated, so I'm dropping it.
• The section on Korea would benefit from the inclusion of a map of the area
  • How's that? Images in the section may need a little jigging to fit. I've also put in a location map for Vietnam with Vung Tau marked
• The ship's second deployment to Korea is buried in half a paragraph - I think that it warrants its own paragraph (at least)
  • The sources I've used treat the second Korean deployment in about that much detail...its usually a throwaway sentance saying "Sydney went back from [date] to [date] to enforce the UN armistace." If I find more, I'll elaborate.
• Sydney's role as the RAN's training ship during her period as a transport could be given greater emphasis
  • As above, most sources I've seen treat the training role in a single sentance.
• Jeparit and Boonaroo were only requisitioned for part of their service - they made most of their voyages to and from Vietnam as civilian vessels under charter
  • Dropped "requesitioned" from that sentance.
• The greatly improved turn around times at Vũng Tàu were due to upgrades to Sydneys cargo-handling facilities (the installation of more/better cranes and LCVPs), as well as practice. Nick-D (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Reworded to say "practice and equipment upgrades". I don't want to elaborate more without a specific cite. I think there's something in Grey that will do it, but again, at least a week before I can access it. How does it look now? -- saberwyn 00:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
    • That looks great, and I just added a little bit of material which I've been meaning to add for the last few weeks. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Any chance you could use that source to elaborate a little on that refit? The relevant part is in the middle of the eighth paragraph, which starts "On 17 January 1968..." -- saberwyn 10:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Yep, done. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Addressed some of your points...more to come. -- saberwyn 10:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

German Type UB I submarine

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring this good article to FA status eventually. User:Bellhalla, the majority contributor to this article, left Wikipedia last year. As a result it, this article has on one to "look arfter" it. (I am in no way suggesting article ownership) Anything that needs to be fixed in order to get this to FA status would be great.

Thanks, Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

It would be helpful if you also indicated what work you think is needed for this article to reach FA status. My suggestions are:

• The article needs a copyedit to fix some repetition and a little bit of awkward grammar
• There's good coverage of the fates of the subs, but not their achievements (to the extent there were any!)
• The lists of subs could be presented as a table providing information on the key dates in their service history (eg, commissioning, final fate, etc) Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get to work on the table soon. Do you think that I should also include a list of ships sunk or otherwise damaged by the Type UB I subs? Much like the one on German Type UE II submarine? Or perhaps I can include how many ships were sunk by each U-boat in the table that you proposed.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and generally well-written. I agree with Nick-D that a table would be good, and your idea of including ships sunk is also good. I have some other suggestions as well.

Lead

• "In 1918, four of the surviving German boats were made into coastal minelayers. Of the seventeen boats in German service, two were sold to Austria-Hungary, one was sold to Bulgaria, and nine were lost during the war." - Something's amiss here. If a total of twenty UB Is were built and Austria-Hungary bought five and Bulgaria one, how could seventeen be in German service in 1918? Should the reference to 1918 come later in the paragraph?

Design

• "By 18 August, just two weeks after the German invasion of Belgium, the planning of a series of small, coastal submarines had already begun." - Would it be helpful to add the year here as well?
• "the Germaniawerft boats seem to have had a fewer number of larger vents" - Tighten by deleting "a" and "number of"; i.e., "to have had fewer larger vents"? Or perhaps "to have had fewer large vents"?

Service

• "Another reported problem with the UB Is was the tendency to break trim... " - Should "trim" be briefly explained or linked?
• "when firing from periscope depth the boat could broach after firing" - Should "broach" be explained or linked?
• "Stern" is redlinked in the article. Would stern work?

Constantinople Flotilla

• "she was surrendered at Sevastopol in November 1918" - To whom was she surrendered?

General

• The images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. The first image has alt text, but it would not be of much use to a blind reader who on a machine that reads the text aloud. The other two images have no alt text. WP:ALT has details.

• What makes uboat.net a reliable source? Its editor says here, "Please note: This entire system is written by individuals in their spare time and without any official or commercial support." Does the site meet the guidelines of WP:RS?

• Perhaps the flatcar image would be better if somewhat bigger than thumb. It's hard to see what it is at thumb size.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

In oreder, "Lead" I have no clue how that happened. I'll have to check up and see why the numbers are not the same. "Design", I'll get to that right now. "Service" same as Design. "Constantinople Flotilla", I'll have to look that up. I'm sure that it was the French/British as they had troops there to help out the White Russians in the RCW but I'm not 100% sure. "General" I'll have to add that in. uboat.net is a RS. Or at least acording to The Ed17. You'll have to ask him about that.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked)

A new direction for myself the first tank/afv article I have really worked on. Its been expanded x5 and I am looking for suggestions to improve it up the assessment scale. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett

• My thoughts on areas to address.
  • The lead is too short as yet
  • Development history is incomplete - why did the British Army want this vehicle, it replaced the Saladin but what about the other variants - new capability or replacing other vehicles. more on the requirements it had to meet and how those affected the final design.

Expanded

• • Initial statements on design and history very short and jerky.

As above

• • Consider renaming history as "design and development" (similar to aircraft articles) then it can cover the project as well as a general description of the CVR(T) hull/suspension

Renamed as suggested

• • "Service history" as a separate level 2 entry

Done

• • How does stormer relate to CVR(T) - its not CVR(T) because its bigger, was it MoD driven or private venture?

Private changed text

• • Check all links: eg Alvis cars is redir to Alvis Cars.

Caught out by this one but changed

GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

This article is off to a good start - you've made great use of the available free images and references and the structure seems sensible. My suggestions for further improvements are:

• The 'Service history' section should cover the AFV's service in all countries, not just the UK, and shouldn't be limited to operational deployments (especially as this excludes the vehicle's use in the British Army of the Rhine during the Cold War)
• The coverage of the Falklands War could probably be expanded; there's a lot of material on the performance of the AFVs sent there (some sources say they were fantastic and the British military made a serious mistake in not sending more, while others are more critical of their performance)
• A table summarising the characteristics of the variants would be interesting Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review I am expanding the service history section. Trying to add a section for each country. Hard going at the moment as most are not the most forth coming with what the have or do.

Expanded a bit on the Falklands.

Will consider a table. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Raoulduke47

In general, a good article. A few remarks, though:

• The picture of the Fox at the bottom of the variants section creates an ugly gap, and is not really necessary. It should be removed, IMO.

There is no gap in my view ?

• In "Service history", having a separate but equal subsection for the UK and Europe implies that the UK is not part of Europe. Geographical logic would have it that "United kingdom" would be a subsection of "Europe".

Joined sections

• Concerning the service history in Afghanistan, it is incorrect to state that CVR(T)s were deployed only after the withdrawal from Iraq. The first vehicles were deployed in early 2006, ie before the withdrawal. In addition, the coverage of the Afghanistan war really is a bit short. The usage of CVR(T)s has been more intensive than in the Falklands, though not without problems, as the fleet is beginning to show its age. The lack of air conditionning has proved particularly problematic, leading to some strang solutions[30]. I'm sure more material could be found quite easily on the internet, if nowhere else on the MoD website[31]. Or you can try A Million Bullets: The Real Story of the British Army in Afghanistan by James Fergusson.

Changed wording

Thanks for the review --Raoulduke47 (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Camp Chapman attack

I have created this article on January 1. While I enjoyed the relative calm on the article's page during the initial expansion of the article, broader participation would be helpful. The article was tagged for Project Military History by User:Anotherclown [32] and nominated for WP:Did you know? by User:Hunter Kahn [33]. Thank you for any assistance in improving and expanding the article!  Cs32en  01:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

MBK004

I apologize on behalf of the coordinators of the project that you have not received any comments here in over a month. This is abnormal for the MILHIST review process.

As to the actual article, it is extremely well constructed and cited and in my opinion it is ready to be nominated at WP:GAN and/or WP:MHR#A-CLASS. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry

This article recently received a peer review at WP:PR and with the subsequent changes I'm hoping it's getting close to possible FAC. The reviewer suggested I seek another review with the Military History Project to see what can be done to further improve the article with an aim towards FAC. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks! Historical Perspective (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Here are my comments:

• suggest full spelling of rank, rather than abbreviations;

Done. Historical Perspective (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• are all the commanders in the infobox really notable? Clark is, but the others may not be. I'd suggest moving them to a section by itself and just including the notable ones in the infobox

Done. Good point. Clark was really the only "notable" commander. The others are mentioned in the body of the text, so I think I'll leave it with just Clark in the infobox. Historical Perspective (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• per the WP:MOS numbers less than ten should probably be spelled, for example in the Battle of Camden section you have "4 killed, 11 wounded, and 1 missing" - this should probably be changed to "four killed, 11 wounded and one missing". (There are other examples of this also)

Done. Historical Perspective (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• the references that are to the same page number could be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS, although I don't think this is a requirement for a higher rating (I might be wrong, though)

I see your point here. I think I'll see what they suggest when I submit it for FAC. Call me old-fashioned, but I'm not a big fan of the consolidated references. Historical Perspective (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• check the spelling of "manoeuvres" in the Organization and early duty section. I think that this is British/Australian spelling of the word, when you have later (in Battle of Chantilly section) used the US "maneuvre", which I think is correct in this case given that it is about an American topic

Done. Historical Perspective (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• page ranges in References should have endashes per WP:DASH;

Done. Historical Perspective (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• should "reenlist" be hyphenated to be "re-enlist"?

Done. Historical Perspective (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, that is it from me. Overall a good article in my opinion. Good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I'll get to work on those changes. Historical Perspective (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a citation error in the Battle of New Bern section. I tried to fix it, but I didn't know the page number so I couldn't. (It is at the end of the section). Can you take a look please? Cheers. Good work with the improvements, by the way. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for catching that. Historical Perspective (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hal Jespersen (talk)

You may wish to consult the style guide used by the Civil War task force. Although these guidelines are optional, by using them you will find yourself more closely aligned with the style of many hundreds of American Civil War articles. Regarding ranks, I use the common English abbreviation of ranks almost exclusively, although a small number of editors choose to spell them out. However, you should strive to use actual ranks rather than honorifics. For example Ambrose Burnside was a major general, not a general, so he is typically listed in our articles as Maj. Gen. Ambrose Burnside, not "Gen" (which for some reason you are abbreviating and not using a period after the abbreviation). And the American spelling is maneuver. A couple of comments about references: although you may not be a fan of the consolidated citations, I think you will find it impossible to become a featured article without conforming to that. Also, the abbreviated citations (such as "Bowen, 329") are more typically found by organizing a Notes section followed by a fully formatted References section in the style of a bibliography, rather than mixing the two in a single section. The references usually are given with ISBN numbers. I have a pretty large list of Civil War references in my personal file that may help you. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, the style guide and the references will be quite helpful, I am sure. On the ranks, I will revert to abbreviations (in the two instances where "Gen" occurs it was simply a typo). And I will break out Notes and References as suggested. Historical Perspective (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The wikilink templates you created for U.S. army ranks were very handy. Thank you. I have replaced all ranks with abbreviations, inserting a wikilink where each rank is used for the first time. I left ranks fully spelled out where used in quotes or where it was not part of a proper title. Hope this conforms to the style guide now. Historical Perspective (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've got the notes all in consolidated format now. Hoping the Notes and References sections now conform to expectations for an FAC. Historical Perspective (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Khalid ibn al-Walid

I've listed this article for peer review because i am planning to forward it for FA nomination, i want to further improve it, it must be able to pass at least GA nomination. So suggestions plz....... regards. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As with some earlier articles submitted, you haven't used ndashes in the number ranges and some identical citations have not been combined YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

ok my bad, just fixed it. any other issues or suggestions ?

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 14:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

llywrch

A few points:

• There are some style issues here, minor things like the lack of a/the in places, inconsistent date format, overlinking (you only need to link to an article once). I fixed a few of these, but you may want to seek further copy editing help.
• I may have missed where you provided this, but surprisingly for an article about a successful general, I did not notice any discussion of his tactical "style". Did he have a particular skill or resource -- other than some snippets of Mohammed's hair -- which enabled him to be so successful?
• I may know of another source for you to draw on. Let me first examine it to see if it would be worth your time to read.

Otherwise, a fascinating subject, presented in a straightfoward manner. Good luck. -- llywrch (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, just added his military legacy dealing with his tactical and strategic analysis.

Any other suggestions plz ? الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Cplakidas

In terms of comprehensiveness, I think the article is very well done. A special "bravo" on the campaign maps, they are really helpful. I would however strongly recommend a thorough copyediting to correct style issues (the lack of a/the noted above, as well as some weird sentence structuring which makes reading difficult). Another point is that there are a few occasions were the last couple of sentences in a paragraph are not covered by citations. If you want to go for A or FA status, they should be attended to. Also a few issues related to Hira and Iraq: Iraq in English is mostly associated with the state, not the region, which is far better known as Mesopotamia. Also, Al-Hirah (and not Hira, which is linked in the article) was not actually the capital of Iraq/Mesopotamia as a whole as is repeatedly stated, but rather of the state of the Lakhmids in "Arab Iraq" south of the Euphrates (which, IIRC, as a term postdates the 7th century considerably). Ctesiphon was the actual capital of Persian Mesopotamia. And a minor quibble: the phrase "Malik was guilty of his anti-state activities" hit me int he eye. It reminds me more of the Soviet Union during Stalin's purges than something related to the 7th-century Muslim state. It is a bit redundant there too, so I'd suggest removing it... That's what I came up in a rather quick going-through, I'll try to find some time to do a more thorough review. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 14:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions they were quite useful, i have replaced iraq with lower Mesopotamia in most of the cases, but in some cases its would make things confusing so i avoided, e.g in the section Campaigns in Armenia and Anatolia and section above it where Jazirah has been mentioned, which is actually upper masopotamia and army was sent to capture it from iraq.

Actually in arabic sources, present day iraq is refered as iraq even in 7th century while the region which is now northern iraq is refered to as 'al-jazirah

I will nominate the article for copy-editing shortly, see if u can help copy-editing it.

Regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

USS Missouri grounding incident

I aim to get this to A-class and then FA class, but at this point I want some feedback about what could be improved before moving onto the next assessment phase. I am open to any ideas you have, so bring'em on :) I note for full disclosure that this article is within the scope of Operation Majestic Titan, of which I'm a part of. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

I just typed up some comments, but my browser ate them after I pressed the wrong button... I'll re-do them tomorrow, but as an initial and fairly wide-ranging comment, was the command arrangements used to navigate Missouri those which were standard for confined waters? The article gives the strong impression that her command and navigational teams were highly dysfunctional, but this is never explicitly stated - it doesn't seem normal for so many officers to have been involved, much less for them to be constantly arguing over her course and speed. The extent of this dysfunction must have dated before Brown's command - did the inquiries find this to be the case? Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are my full comments:

• A map showing the Missouri's track, or even a general map of the area, would be invaluable
• The article needs a copyedit, as it presently contains some passive wording, repeated words within sentences and some prose is overly complex
• I agree with Blackeagle's comments about most of the first three paras in the 'background' section being unnecessary. The last sentence in the introduction ("She entered the Puget Sound Reserve Fleet in Bremerton, Washington, where she remained until being reactivated in 1984 as part of the 600-ship Navy plan put forth by then President Ronald Reagan and his Navy Secretary John Lehman") also isn't necessary.
• An explanation of the different roles each of the main people identified in the article had during the navigation of the ship in confined waters is needed; at present it's clear who was meant to do what
• "The battleship USS Missouri ran aground during a transition from harbor to Chesapeake Bay, heading for open sea" - I don't think that 'transition' is an appropriate word here ('transit', perhaps?) and it's rather complex. How about something like "when the battleship USS Missouri ran aground while sailing into Chesapeake Bay"
• The political controversy mentioned (without a cite) in note 3 seems significant enough to be in the body of the article given that it is relevant to the aftermath of this accident
• As noted above, the article should cover the Missouri's command and navigation team's relationship and level of experience prior to this accident. Also, was Captain Smith's 'relief' a routine command changeover, or due to some failing?
• "met in conference" - could be simplified to 'met'
• "shoal (or mud bar)" - which was it?
• "An attempt made by Missouri's sailors on the day of the grounding met with failure" - what did this involve?
• Red Fleet links to Soviet Navy, not the publication
• "Admiral Smith, at the time Commander, Cruisers, Atlantic, and the man who was responsible for issuing Missouri's order" - which order was this?
• "the officials at The Pentagon would take notice" - this is a bit vague and it's obvious that the military's commanders were aware of this accident, especially as the article states that the ship had grounded under the noses of a bunch of senior admirals and generals, that 10,000 letters were written to the Navy following the accident and units from several parts of the military were involved.
• "Wallin pledged to assist in the salvage effort" this implies that he didn't have to take up this task - is that correct?
• The article has some informal wording that needs to be fixed up (eg, "the latter feeling that any steady speed held during the transition would be okay", "wiping out a portion of Windlass's side railing", etc)
• "A Norfolk harbor pilot was responsible for issuing the engine and rudder orders to the battleship, while Missouri's own navigator issued course orders for the battleship during the tow." - did this differ from normal practice, and if not, what was its significance?
• The "Aftermath" section is much too short. What lessons did the USN learn from this accident?
• The statement that "Despite proof to the contrary, rumors continue to circulate that Missouri suffered permanent damage as a result of the grounding incident" is referenced to a seven year old newsletter. As such, I don't think it establishes that 'rumors continue to circulate' about the ship.
• Is http://www.navysite.de/bb/bb63.htm#acc a reliable source? Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Blackeagle

I think that some of the general information about the ship in the "Background" section is probably unnecessary (as is the link to the Armament of the Iowa class battleship article). The ship's design history, armament, and WWII history aren't really relevant to this article. The post-WWII to 1949 period is what's most relevant here.

The Aftermath section is rather skimpy. Who are the other officers court martialed over the grounding? Why were two of them cleared? What repairs did the ship require?

Many of the notes can probably go. Note 2 seems like random trivia. Notes 3 and 9 aren't really relevant to the content of this article. Note 8 doesn't really seem relevant to this article, since the Pawcatuck wasn't jumboized until the mid-1960s and was still a standard Cimarron class oiler at the time of this incident. Notes 5, 6, and 7 should probably be integrated into the main body of the article.

A very nice article overall. Blackeagle (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bombardment of Papeete

I've been working on this article for quite a while and want to submit it for a Good Article review, but would like a peer review first. What else do you think should be included/changed in the article to meet the requirements of a Good Article. Any advice is greatly appreciated.XavierGreen (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ian Rose

This is a well-written article on an interesting action that I think should do quite well at GAN. Apart from my usual light copyedit, I have the following comments:

• Re. the name of the action, which you discuss on the talk page, I tend to prefer simply "Bombardment of Papeete" if there's no major sourcing for "Battle of Papeete". Also a bit confusing to have the article named "Bombardment of Papeete" but "Battle of Papeete" in the infobox. Note I also had to change your wording in the first sentence because while, grammatically, "Bombardment of Papeete in French Polynesia by German warships" is correct, "Battle of Papeete" requires something like "involving German warships" to agree.
• I feel we're missing a sentence from the start of the Background section; be good to know just a little bit more about what Spee was up to when he decided to split his foroes.
• Last sentence of Background should have a citation.
• You're using a mixture of British and American English spelling, e.g. "armoured" and "colours" vs. "defenses" and multiple instances of "harbor" (but also "harbour"). Given this is about French vs. Germans I don't think it matters which you use so long as it's consistent.
• I'm a bit confused about Destremau's status. His first mention implies he was directly in command of Zelee only, but subsequently it seems clear that he's either de jure commander of all French forces at Papeete, or de facto commander of all French forces at Papeete by virtue of being Zelee's commander - can you clarify?
• A copra store, market, as well as several other buildings... reads oddly. Do we mean "a market"? Probably should also just be "and several other buildings..." in any case.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Another editor had repeatedly changed the article's title to Battle of Papeete without any sources to back him up. After i changed it back to the Bombardment of Papeete he added it to the first line of the introduction and the infobox. Ive fixed them all now so that they say Bombardment of Papeete.XavierGreen (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Destremau was the commander of the Zelee, but apparently as he was the ranking officer there at the time of the battle overal command fell to him during the battle.XavierGreen (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think ive fixed the rest of the issues you mentioned.XavierGreen (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

---

Portal:Biological warfare

Statistics: Three rotating images in the Intro, 14 Selected articles, all B-class or higher, 25 Selected biological agents, all B-class or higher, 20 Selected pictures, 10 sets of 2 DYK hooks, all with free-use images, 20 Selected quotes, all with free-use images, and a Rotating In this month section.

Looking for any feedback/comments prior to WP:FPORTC. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military technology and engineering task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force. Cirt (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• I keep meaning to leave comments here and Each time I get to do so something seems to come up. At any rate, I found the portal to be of good quality, nothing is wanting, although I was curious as to why you selected the red biohazard image for the article instead of the black image. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Which other one do you suggest? Cirt (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If you meant this one, File:Biohazard symbol.svg, I like the red one as it adds more color and distinguishing characteristics and dynamism to the portal. :P Cirt (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Hans Beißwenger

I have worked on another Luftwaffe fighter pilot article that I would like reviewed. Again I need to point out that I have nothing on his personal life, sorry for that. You may also have a look at the class rating (start right now) and check if it meets B-class. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Auntieruth55

Again, a nicely done article. Not much to go on without anything his personal life.  :(

• He had achieved his 50th aerial victory was achieved the previous day on 8 May. This sentence is confusing. ? He scored his 50th aerial victory on 8 May?
• jump from where he was born to he transferred to....which is a bit of a jump.
• Is it possible to work the promotion request text into your article? This offers an interesting view of his character, and the promotion requirements as well, and might enhance your description of him, which at present is pretty much he shot down this plane on that day, he transferred, he shot down two more planes, he did something else, etc. Just cogitating....Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Marine79

I like the article. There are a few things I noticed and one thing I fixed.

• Fixed-- I moved the (First Lieutenant)(Second Lieutenant) behind the first references to Oberleutnant and Leutnant so the translation can be made the first time that rank is used in the article instead of in the middle in a quote.
• Noticed.1-- In the section of his military career the dates get a little out of sequence. 15 Aug he gets kill 75, 26 Sep he gets 100, 30 Sep he recieves an award, then back in time to 4 Sep is the promotion quote.
• .2-- I think re-organizing his career into years might straighten out some of the paragraphs.
• .3-- Maybe there could be a table of his victories milestones at the end of is military career section.
  

Marine79 (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Mary Rose

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've been writing on this article since last summer and I'm looking to make this an FA soon. I haven't nominated anything since Vasa (ship), but I feel this should be my next one. I'm intensely close to the text so I'm not really aware of any glaring problems right now. I'd like to perhaps shorten the article somewhat, but it's difficult to know where to make the cuts. I hope I can get some useful suggestions for that and other things here, though.

Thanks in advance,

Peter ^Isotalo 20:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is an excellent article, and is very comprehensive and elegantly written. I particularly like the photos of the ship's remnants as they currently appear - my attempts to take photos of her when I visited in 2006 were frustrated by the windows of the viewing gallery being covered in the waxy liquid being used to preserve the hull! My suggestions for further improvements are:

Those are some very nice comments and they're greatly appreciated. And it's nice to hear that the pics are helpful. I've been fortunate both in finding works that others have found and in getting a generous donation from the Mary Rose Trust. And I shouldn't forget to mention that I've gotten a lot of help with copyedting from a whole bunch of helpful and experienced editors. Peter ^Isotalo 18:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• There's a bit of repetition in some sections of the prose (eg, 'Constructing a warship of the size of the Mary Rose was a major construction project' - the second 'construction' could be omitted here)

   Done

• It should be noted that building the ship required skilled workers as well as high quality material. NAM Roger might have some material on the British shipbuilding industry of the period you can draw on if needed.
• "The average number of men on an armed mission" reads like the crew were on detached duty away from the ship; something like 'her wartime manning' might be more appropriate.

   Done

• "The English had around 80 ships with which to oppose the French, including the flagship Mary Rose, but were at a considerable disadvantage in the number of heavy galleys, the vessels who were at their best in sheltered waters like the Solent, and promptly retreated into Portsmouth harbour." is a bit awkward and unclear and might work better as two sentences.

   Done

• What 'scour pits' are might need to be explained

  Is "large underwater ditches" enough, you think? Peter ^Isotalo 18:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• The statement that "Henry Abbinett became the first person to actually see the Mary Rose in almost 300 years" in 1836 contradicts the earlier statement that she could be viewed from the surface at low tide up to about 1643.

   Done

• The 'Causes of sinking' section seems out of place - it would work better before the 'History as a shipwreck' section.

   Done

• The short para that begins with 'Finally, there was a vast collection of disparate' needs a citation
• The article should cover the display of Mary Rose and artifacts from her at Portsmouth. When I was there in 2006 the long-term plan was to have the hull set up so that visitors could walk next to it on a walkway while a replica of the ship as she originally looked was on the other side of the walkway - is this still the case? Her display next to HMS Victory also warrants mention.

  I almost hoped no one would notice that one. :-) You're right about the plans, though. There are articles on the Mary Rose Museum and Mary Rose Trust with some info on that, but I agree that there needs to be a bit more in this article as well. I'll need to revisit some refs no longer in my possession for that, though. Peter ^Isotalo 18:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nimitz class aircraft carrier

I have been worked on this article and it is currently a GA. However, I would like further input as to how it can be improved to A class or FA. Jhbuk (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Buggie111

Sorry if this is short, but all images need alts. Buggie111 (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Buggie, you should provide links to help out the editor. What he meant was WP:ALT -MBK₀₀₄ 04:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Which ones don't? I thought I'd covered them all before I started the PR. Jhbuk (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, eeveryone except the sidedrawing and the one in the infobox. Buggie111 (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed - they were there, just not properly formatted (with alt=). Jhbuk (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Now nothing is popping up. IDK what happened, might just be my comp. Buggie111 (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

What makes navysite.de reliable? It is done by two students who proclaim on teh page that they are amateurs. A large % of the refs are from this site YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is actually very little substantial information referenced solely under the site, just things like what deployments the ships were involved in - the referencing on the table actually came from the USN at first (I think), but I didn't put the refs in at that point for some reason. I later realised this and just put the first ones I found in, which is why there is a lump of them in the middle. Would it be better to just get rid of them in general, rather than using them to support other sources. Jhbuk (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC) I think I've done. There are still a couple of refs that need some extra info, but I'll do them later. Jhbuk (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that the only reference that might need replacing? Jhbuk (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Tskhinvali

The article has been considerably expanded and rewritten. There are very few people commenting and giving feedback on the talk page, so I'd like to get more opinions. I'm especially interested in hearing how readable the article is. Is it interestingly written or is it boring? Is it clear or confusing? Is the language use good enough? Is some essential information missing? Offliner (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wandalstouring

• What's a MIA?

• This war is noteable for its political implications. You should mention the different POV of other countries. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In the infobox, MIA means "missing in action." I have clarified this. The POV issues are discussed at length in the main war article (2008 South Ossetia war). It was a a conscious decision to let Battle of Tskhinvali focus on the military action, leaving the responsibility and casus belli discussions to the main article. Remember that this article is about a specific battle and not about the war as a whole. Thank you for your feedback. More feedback would be appreciated. Offliner (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Heinrich Hoffmann (pilot)

This is a very short article and includes every bit of information I could find so far on the guy. Please let me know how to improve the article and/or alternative sources to consult. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Auntieruth

Interesting article, but scarce on the details, as you've pointed out above. I'm not sure where else to look. I suppose you've tried the 1940s era newspapers? I meddled with your lead a bit, because the last two sentences of it were repetitive. In the lead you make a big deal about his receiving the award posthumously, but don't mention that in the article itself. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

TomStar81

As a practical matter the article looks good enough to be B-class or even A-class. I think you've done an outstanding job with what you were given to work with. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Klis Fortress

The article is currently a B-class. I am interested in opinions of more experienced editors on how the quality and standard of the article can be improved for GA class. The article is not finished yet. Sections: Šubić's rule over the fortress (Šubić family and Tvrtko I) and Fortress lost its strategic weight (Venetians and Austrians) will be expended. After I am done with them, I hope that user Laurinavicius will do the necessary copyediting. The section: Interesting Notes should stay, or be implemented into the article? I will also add all necessary inline citations and improve references. The feedback that I am most interested is abouth the structure of an article. Is it broad in its coverage, focused and neutral? Because we are talking about two thousand year-long history. Thanks. Kebeta (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

A couple of technical points:

• according to the [article tools] there are a number of disambig links that need to be checked and piped through to the more correct links.; Done
• the images could have alt text added to them per WP:ALT; Done
• there are a few points that have a Citation needed tag, which will need to be rectified for a GA (even a B class would probably require these to be fixed) Done
• some of the date format is not consistent with the Manual of Style, for instance in the "Klis - A sanjak centre of Bosnia" section you have 7 April, 1596. Per the MOS this should be either "7 April 1596", or "April 7, 1596" (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Full date formatting; Done
• the Bibliography should be sorted alphabetically by author's surname. Done

Anyway, these are just a few points to get the review started. Hopefully some more editors will be able to provide some pointers too. Good work so far, by the way. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks AustralianRupert for your review! I will implement this into the article soon. Regards, --Kebeta (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Royal Scots Greys

Would like to get this article peer reviewed. Made some significant additions to the article. Thank you. --HistorianBell 03:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

• The lead could be expanded, up to four paragraphs if need be;
• alt text could be added to the images;
• There is one disambig link that needs fixing (Maas) per the WP:Featured article tools
• There is some inconsistency in spelling conventions, with a mixture of British and American English (e.g honour and honor, colour and color, etc.)
• Check for consistency in style of citations. At least one citation with a page range does not us "pp.", but instead uses "p.". See citation # 61, where mostly you have used "pp." for page ranges.
• There is some inconsistency in terminology. You refer to both the Great War and the First World War; I think you should use only one name, whatever that may be.
• As per the above point, you use both the term Tsar and Czar in the Regimental traditions section

Anyway, that is it for now. Sorry it is just a quick look. Good work so far. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Patar knight

Just a few points:

• Expand the lede. Should include most of the stuff listed here: Wikipedia:MILMOS#Unit or formation
• The years in the section and sub-section headers are really distracting. Either remove them, or move them to the ends, so they're not right up against the TOC numbers.
• The numerous subsections under History are distracting. It would look nicer if it was broken down into small units (no pun intended). Some of the lvl 3 headers, especially those with numerous lvl. 4 subsections could be made into individual lvl 2 sections (e.g. Great War, World War II, Napoleonic Wars)
• Are there any notable commanders that can be added under the Commanders section in the infobox?
• What makes [34] a reliable source. Some of your other web-based sources, are also a bit sketchy in terms of reliability, but should preferably be replaced.
• Link and explain more relevant terms Sybourg's brigade, Moselle River, Treaty of Aix-la-chapelle, Pragmatic army, Battle of Salamanca etc.
• The victory at Malplaquet is mentioned before it actually occurs in the 1693-1714 section.
• I saw a couple spelling mistakes (Gryes=>Greys)
• Try to avoid using numeric forms of small numbers (except in Dates of course). For example, in the Campaign in the Low Countries section, you use "4 new troops to 9 troops..." and almost immediately afterwards, you use "Four troops of Scots Greys"
• Capitalize low countries
• Peninsula War => Peninsular War

Good job, --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Dana boomer

Overall, I agree with the comments raised above. Lead expansion is definitely needed, and alt text for A-level and FAC (although not generally asked for at GAN). All of the subsections under the History section are a little distracting, I agree with Patar knight that some of them could be removed and others made into different level headings. Other than that:

• What makes the image File:ScotsGreys.jpg (under the Waterloo section) fair use? I don't see anything that gives a source or publication date, and I highly doubt that the original uploader was the one who created the original painting. The same with File:Scotland Forever.jpg. In general, I would contact an image expert (User:Awadewit and User:NuclearWarfare are two good ones) to check out your images, especially before going to FAC. There are several that I am iffy on the permissions of, but I'm not an expert on copyright, and so am not the best person to be judging them... :)
  • I'm not either. I may have used them by mistake after finding them in Wikicommons or they might have been some of the ones who which were on the page when I found it. Either way, I'll look into it. Its my understanding that the Butler one is probably good to use, but I will double check that one. --HistorianBell 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• The captions on all of your images are really long. Per MOS:IMAGES#Captions, image captions should be succinct.
• Per MOS:IMAGES#Images, avoid sandwiching text between images.
• Some expansion on why the "Notable members of the Scots Greys" are notable would be nice.
• Some of the web references needs publishers added. Also agree wtih Patar knight on what makes the Spanish Succession website (Ref #9) a reliable source.
  • It seems fairly reliable and checks with the other sources I have seen. Additionally, although his footnoting could be better in form, they ones that I have looked up check out.--HistorianBell 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• What makes Ref #22 (Scotswar.com) a reliable source? The site itself says that "...we make no guarantees as to the currency, accuracy, or quality of information stored here."
• What makes Ref #23 (Britishbattles.com) a reliable source? Same for refs #31, 36, 55
• What makes Ref #54 (Ensign Ewart) a reliable source? It appears to be a pub website...
• What makes Ref #84 (Anglo Boer War) a reliable source? Same for refs #86, 90, 92
  • The Boer War site reference will be changed. What that website has done is taken the text of a public domain available history of the Boer War. As far as I can tell, now that I have compared the two, its pretty much word for word.--HistorianBell 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• What makes Ref #112 (Ian Paterson) a reliable source? The site itself says that "As far as I know the information is as accurate as possible", which doesn't sound very definite. Same for ref #114, 128
• What makes Ref #119 (Milhist) a reliable source?
• What makes Ref #120 (Bardsabode) a reliable source? On first glance it looks like a military source, but then has author information attributed to the guy who runs the website, which is a photography sales and hobby site. Same for ref #121
• Ref #129 (Warlinks) is deadlinking.
  • Fixed --HistorianBell 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• What makes Ref #131 (Britisharmedforces.com) a reliable source? The site itself says "This is not a military historical site," and seems to be geared more towards individual rememberances then factual history (nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't make the greatest source).
  • Its been listed (and currently is) as a site good for referencing on the British military history task force page. --HistorianBell 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not saying that all of the above are definitely unreliable - simply asking what proves that the above have been written by experts, quoted or recommended by large-scale magazines/newspapers/tv shows, etc. You may want to check with a reference expert (User:Ealdgyth is good) for a more expert judgement on the above and all other sources. User:Fifelfoo may also be a good one to check with regarding the high quality of published sources before going to FAC.

I hope the above comments help. I will be watchlisting this page, so please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'll work on the others as I have time. --HistorianBell 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney

I have made some changes to image locations etc, some comments are;

• Reference style you should add a list of sources used see todays FA Elwood Haynes for example. Also use Template:Cite web for internet sources.

• Unless the notable members section is complete, I would delete it. Keyes and Finnes etc could be used in the article.

• The info box is misleading it appears they were an armoured regiment from 1678. I would add Cavalry Corps (United Kingdom) before Royal Armoured Corps with dates. Same for role heavy cavalry before armoured regt.

• Also in the inf box citations are needed for the nicknames and motto.

• The Waterloo section with three images is one to many I would select the two you like best and delete the third.

• In the Great war section the first use of BEF and Brigadier-General Gough I Corps and the battles mentioned should be linked.

• Second world war BEF needs linking.

--Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

HMS New Zealand (1911)

There are a few issues that I'd like get opinions on before I send this up for GAR. Is the lead too short? Where's the best place for the bit of trivia about the captain and the grass skirt? The differences between New Zealand and her half-sister Indefatigable are generally covered in the class article, but I'm wondering if I need to address them more here as well?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Buckshot06

Er, please be careful about your use of terms, Sturmvogel. Neither the Maori nor the Royal New Zealand Navy would be happy about you terming the Captain's wearing of the piu-piu and tiki in battle - and the subsequent lack of any serious damage to the ship - as 'trivia.' The two were ceremonially handed back to the Navy within the last couple of years and are now in the Royal New Zealand Navy Museum. [35]

There is no mention of the fact that a considerable number (~10%?) of the country's population cam aboard on the initial visit, and there is also no mention of the New Zealand officers and ratings that served aboard. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • Both good points, and I have seen some numbers for her 1913 visit; now just to remember where. And where does the mention of the regalia belong? I'm a bit inclined to put it into the pre-war section as that's when it was gifted. What do you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. Having looked up my sources, this is what they say:

..when war was declared, there were three NZ officers serving aboard, all from Christchurch: Lieutenants D. Boyle and R.C. Garsia and Mid H. Anderson.

(during Jutland) '..Many on board put their luck down to the fact that throughout the operation Captain GReen wore a Maori piu piu and greenstone tiki given to the ship in 1913 by an old chief in Rotorua. On that occasion, the chief advised that both the piu piu and tiki were to be worn by the captain when the ship was in action. With the gift came the prediction that the New Zealand would be hit three times, but her casualties would not be heavy. Capt Halsey wore the gifts at Heligoland and the Dogger Bank, and Capt Green followed suit at Jutland. ..'

'..The ship's company were firm believers both in the old chief's prophecy and in the ability of the piu piu and tiki to ward off trouble. More than a year after the Battle of Jutland, on the last occasion that New Zealand sighted enemy ships and went to action stations, a seaman was seen to climb a ladder to the bridge and take a quick look around. 'It's all right,' he called to his mates below, 'he's got them on' - a shout that assured them that the captain was wearing the piu piu and tiki.'

Grant Howard, 'The Navy in New Zealand: An Illustrated History,' A H and A W Reed, ISBN 0 589 01355 6, Wellington and Sydney, 1981, p.30-31

Therefore I'd argue that this gift was directly in the tradition of British regimental regalia, customs, traditions etc and was a potentially significant factor in crew morale. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is a solid article which provides a good history of the ship, and I really do intend to upgrade the article on Australia ;) My comments are:

• I'm suprised to see that no New Zealand sources have been used; while this was a British ship, there's presumably coverage in NZ sources of the decision to fund her and how she was regarded

I'm more familiar with the technical stuff rather than the politics, so bear with me. If you've got any pointers I'll be glad to follow up, but the situation isn't as easy as it is for HMAS Australia and the RNZN wasn't yet in existence to document her as well as her sister was. Hell, I'm not even sure if the RN made any effort to collect New Zealander sailors in her crew or not. The brief mentions of her on the RNZN museum website don't imply so, but I dunno one way or another.

• Stating that the ship was a "gift to Britain" is a bit inaccurate; while NZ funded the ship, it was an investment in imperial security and was made as part of a deliberate empire-wide strategy, and wasn't a disinterested present. Saying that Australia was merely "funded by the people of Australia" also isn't correct as she was a unit of the Royal Australian Navy manned mostly by Australians.

That's more true for the Australians who did form the RAN, but New Zealand, IIRC, had no conditions placed on her by the New Zealand PM when the money was donated.

• Is the reason NZ switched to funding a BC really not known? This may have formed part of the fleet unit strategy, in which British and dominion battlecruisers were to form the basis of task forces to protect imperial shipping routes in the event of war (the RAN was established to provide a fleet unit, and the concept worked fairly well in 1914).

Yes, she was to form part of a fleet unit, but the accounts in Lambert and the Australian official history are rather vague on the exact reasons.

• The coverage of the ship's career outside of the battles she was involved in is very sketchy, and should be expanded. Topics such as how she was crewed and her training program should be covered.

She didn't have much of a career outside the war, other than the tours of the Dominions that she conducted before and after the war. And details such as you are asking for are very hard to dig up without a book dedicated to the ship.

• The 'In service' section appears to be largely boilerplate text about the battles, and there's no real focus on New Zealand's role in them. This section could be trimmed heavily, as there's no real need to provide detailed coverage of battles in which New Zealand was just one of many British ships involved.

That's true of the raid on Scarborough, but not at all true of the main three battles in which she participated. You need a fair amount of context to properly show New Zealand's actions.

• The geocities link needs to be replaced; geocities wasn't a reliable source when it existed, and it was turned off a few months ago. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I'd forgotten about that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The other thing is the payment issue - we didn't finish off paying the loan for her construction until about 1948. This needs to be included. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Financing issues are generally pretty obscure. Got a cite for it?Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hchc2009

The in-line citation could be stronger; there's quite a few paragraphs (e.g. the "Battle of Heligoland Bight" section) containing a large number of facts - in fact a whole battle's worth - but only one citation, citing quite a large section of a book. Breaking up the citations so that each new fact was covered by a different citation would probably help.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The citation covers 4 pages; I don't feel that every single fact in a paragraph needs to be cited individually if they're all found in the same source, even if they're on different pages. It's just not that hard to find a single fact in those few pages.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Dana boomer

• The lead should be expanded. WP:LEAD recommends two to three paragraphs for an article of this length.
• ALT text needs to be added for A-class and FAC, but is not generally needed for GAN.
• The Wartime modifications section has a lot of short paragraphs, which make for a very choppy look and read.
• The prose overall looks good, but you may want to take another look over it. For example, In service section, "Walter Cowan was her Captain in 1914–15." Captain should be decapitalized here. Also in the Background section, "For some reason it was built to a modified". "For some reason" sounds rather unencyclopedic. Like I said, overall its good, but could use another comb-over before GAN.

I've made a few tweaks to the references, adding publishes and making the formatting work right. I don't think that more needs to be said about the differences between the New Zealand and the Indefatiguable. I hope the above comments help. Dana boomer (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ian Rose

Good work as usual, I don't think much needs to be done for GA that hasn't been already noted, however:

• For some reason sounds a bit unencyclopedic; if you can't think of an alternate expression I'd just lose those three words entirely.
• If I review for GA I'll be asking for alt text on the images; I'd also recommend increasing their size as most are quite miniscule for what they're trying to display.
• It would be preferable to remove the IWM watermark from the main image.
• I think the Battle of Heligoland Bight image would be better on the right-hand side; it stuffs the subheader (on my PC anyway) as it is, may do for others as well.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940

I am looking for feedback on the article. The article/list is one of many comprising the recipients of different grades of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. I am especially interested in understanding whether this article/list as part of a larger collection of articles/lists qualifies for A-class assessment. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.

Although this list is good, it really isn't enough for A-Class, let alone FLC. I have the following suggestions:

• There is quite a bit of whitespace in the article at the top of the page before the lead.
• The information in general on the award and recipients requires expansion and further detail.
• It might be an idea to add alt text to the images.
• In an overall concept, this list is too short and does not contain enough entrants. As there isn't a lot in the of entrants in the List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1941 either—particularly in comparison to the next few lists—I would recommend that the two lists be combined to form List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940–1941. This would create a decent size list and, with additional prose content, hopefully a good A-Class or FLC contender.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran

About a month ago, I uploaded a massive expansion to this article (as well as the articles on HMAS Sydney (D48) and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran - the ships involved). I am hoping to take this article to FA status, and would like the help of some fresh eyes to find any factual or stylistic errors before the article starts its climb through the ranks.

I request permission to intersperse my replies with your comments... if you wish for my replies to be kept separate, please specify. -- saberwyn 23:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ranger Steve

I'll have a read later on. Just one quick observation though - there's a red link to an image in the background section. Ranger Steve (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I broke that when I was fixing the ndashes in the refs and changed a hyphen in the file to a ndash. Fixed. Also, the formatting of the referencing is now cleaned up, hopefully I didn't miss anything. There were a few places where the italics weren't turned off and the pages were italicised as well as the book title, so that could do with another check. The article is also very, very long, and the forking might be made more vigorous. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 13:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Question for YellowMonkey. Is there anywhere clarifying that all citations for multiple pages should be "pp."? I've been taught to distinguish between consecutive and non-consecutive page ranges by using pp. and pgs. -- saberwyn 04:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, do you have any particular candidates for trimming down and/or forking out. There are a series of subarticles (see Template:Sydney-Kormoran) that would be potential targets. -- saberwyn 04:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Had a good read now (sorry it took so long, Christmas and all that). Firstly congratulations on the expansion - the article is excellent and you've done a great job adding so much info and detail to it. I think you should be angling for an FA in future. A few points:

• Is it worth mentioning that this was Australia's greatest single loss in the lead?
  • Done
• The "ships" section might benefit from having sub headings for Sydney and Kormoran. Or, you could go the whole hog and delete the ships section, add subheadings to the background section and move all the ships details under those subheadings along with their past actions.
  • Crudely done. I'll finesse it over the next few days.
    • Looks good already
• There is significantly more detail on the various salvoes fired by the Kormoran compared to the Sydney. I expect the reason is the obvious, but I just wondered if there was any more detail that could be added to it to balance the section a little bit more?
  • There is very little detail on the few shots fired by Sydney, and a lot of it is vague or uncertain, mainly because those on Kormoran were too busy maintaining the pressure to pay attention to where the limited return fire came from and its effect. That said, I'll see what I can find... worst case scenario: I strip the info on Kormorans shots back a little to balance.
    • I'd actually recommend noting what you've said above rather than stripping info, if a ref exists for it.
      • I'm not sure I'll find a blatant citation for that...its just my impression from reading the various sources. Eyes will be kept open, though. -- saberwyn 21:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• This might be nothing but thought I'd check - In the 4th paragraph of "Analysis: Histiography" the quote reads "reasonable and persuasive... [h]owever, she tried too hard to defend the crew of the Kormoran... at the expense of Sydney". What is the "h" substituting? I just can't think of another word that uses "owever", and wondered if the bracket should be around the entire word instead of just one letter.

Other than that I think it's excellent! Ranger Steve (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Capital "H"
    • Aha!
  • Thanks for your comments. FA is the eventual destination intended for the article. -- saberwyn 20:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Nice one Ranger Steve (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

XavierGreen

The current name does not conform to precendents. I took the liberty of changing it, but i probably should have discussed it on the talk page first. We have dozens of Good Articles, A-class articles, and featured articles titled as Action of (insert date) for battles that do not have established names such as this one does. There are no Good Articles for single ship actions using the title that had previously existed on the article.XavierGreen (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion would have been nice, because the article has undergone several without-warning name changes (accompanied by equally-without-warning reverts) since the 2008 rediscovery (see [36] [37]). However, if the new title is what consensus is, I'll roll with it. -- saberwyn 04:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The current review and all the infrastructure associated with it will also need to be re-titled if this new name is also retained. Once that has been determined, please let a coordinator know. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I preferred the old title, which described this action far better. Admittedly there isn't a clear name for the engagement, but given the common references to the event in the media (using the ships names), I'd have said using the ships names is a better idea. As a common courtesy I'd have at least discussed this first, especially as the editor who has done the most to the article just opened this peer review to discuss such changes. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion underway on the article's talk page. Could any comments regarding the article's name be directed there? Thanks. -- saberwyn 20:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

MBK004

This is one of the better articles that I have seen come up for a peer review in quite some time, so you deserve credit for doing an excellent job. It is my opinion that you should go ahead and nominate for GA and/or A-Class. I believe that any issues that may arise in those reviews would not be time-prohibitive to cause a nomination to not succeed. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave the peer review open for another week or so (in case anyone has any comments or observations they wish to make), and will nominate this for A and/or GA class in the new year. -- saberwyn 12:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Saberwyn: closing

Thanks to all for commenting. I'm closing the peer review, but I won't be taking this (or the articles on the two ships) to A-class or FA until the various discussions about what the article should be called come to a resolution. Could any further comments or suggestions for improving the article be taken to the article's talk page? Again, thanks! -- saberwyn 07:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Joachim Helbig

I'm seeking feedback and re-assessment (Stub now) on this article I just worked on. Unfortunately I couldn't find much background on his personal life. Please let me know how to improve the article. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

This is a very good article in my opinion. I've assessed as B class for the Military History project. There's not much I can say in the way of suggesting improvements. A couple of points, though:

• there is one disambig link (Vogelsang) per the Featured article tools;
• a sentence or two on his family and early education would be great, but as you say you couldn't find much then this is kind of a redundant point (sorry);
• a couple more images would be great, if possible - are there any of one of the planes he flew, perhaps?
• perhaps move the post war life information out of the In defense of the Reich section and put it in a Later life section?

Anyway, that is it. As I said, well done. Hopefully some others with aviation bio experience might be able to offer you more. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Auntieruth55

Yes, a very good article. I've fixed some of the prepositions and such. Also, in the lead, you put the German translations in parens, and in the body of the article, you use only the German. I've added some of the English in parens, but it should be consistent. I've added some commas, tried to smooth out some of the language, as in Lent and Moelders.

This is confusing: Schlund's ability to drive off the attacking fighter force was instrumental in a mission against the Warrington Propeller Works located north of Liverpool. Further missions included the attack and destruction of the lock entrance to the Manchester Ship Canal at Eastham and the attack ... What did he use, his microphone? Or did the radio operator also operate a weapon?

It does feel skimpy to me. Odd that some of the big-time sources (Hinchcliffe?) don't include much on him. Do you have access to these ?

• Antony L Kay and John Richard Smith, German aircraft of the Second World War : including helicopters and missiles, Annapolis, Md. Naval Inst. Press 2002
• Georg Brütting, Das waren die deutschen Kampfflieger-Asse : 1939-1945, Stuttgart : Motorbuch-Verlag, 1974.
• Hajo Herrmann, Eagle's wingsOsceola, WI : Motorbooks International, 1991
• Christopher F Shores, Duel for the Sky, Garden City, N.Y. : Doubleday, 1985.

Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Szigetvár

This article just passed as a B class on a WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. Need suggestions to improve the article further. Thanks! Kebeta (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Kyriakos

Overall, it is a good article but there are a few points that you can improve on in this article.

• The lead should be expanded to explain a bit more about what is said in the article. - Will do!
• It would be good if you could add a new section at the start of the article, explaining the background of the topic like the Ottoman Conquest of Hungary. Done
• The aftermath section would be better off not having any subsections and just having the casaulties and the consequences as seperate paras instead of seperate sctons. Done
• It would be good if they See Also section could be removed. The first two links in the section are already incorporated in the article so there is no need for them there. There other two links could be incorporated into the new section at the start. Done

Good luck and I hope this help. Kyriakos (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kyriakos for your quick review! I agree with you, and will implement this into the article. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wandalstouring

• "The count Zrinsky scorned all answer to the insulting offer, and only fought with the greater desperation, when superadded to religious and national hate, there grew up within his breast the incitement of personal indignation.[14]" Needs to be verified with a modern source. I don't see how this offer can be insulting, it's pretty normal for that age. National hate needs definetly a source, we are in early modern times, the national concept will evolve a few centuries later.
• "heroic obstinate commander" needs to be balanced. It's not always heroic to be obstinate and not every hero is obstinate. And it was a hopeless cause, so everybody fighting for a hopeless cause is a hero?
• "One disputed view by a historian asserts is that before leading the final sortie by the garrison" Who says that. "a historian" is not precise.
• "colossal booby trap" is an exageration. It was pretty normal that the powder magazine blew up in this time, either by a direct artillery hit, by carelessness or on purpose.
• "Hundreds perished when the magazine exploded." and "The Vizier and his mounted officers had just time to escape, but 3000 Turks perished in the explosion which shortly followed." contradict each other. if 3k died it's thousands. if 300 died it's hundreds.
• The number of survivors is contradictionary. Were there only four men saved by the Janissary or were there more?
• You need to discuss sources on these events. What bias do they have. Take a look at Greco-Persian Wars for an example. This is very important because the strong national feelings of Hungary and Croatia are being tied to this event.
• 19th century sources have other problems that are discussed in modern works and someday somebody will discuss the problems of our modern historiography, however, you must make the reader aware that the waves of nationalism played there part in shaping perception of this event. Thus be careful with old sources and check whether this information is still used in the same way in modern historiography.
• I have not a clue what the men are fighting for. It makes hardly sense to defend an undermanned fortress for a few weeks and it wouldn't have made any difference for a determined Turkish army that was set out to conquer Europe. Please explain the reasons why this battle happened at all.
• You totally ignore Turkish politics. The death of the Sultan resulted in a bloddy powerstruggle between the grown up male descendants with only one survivor(in early times the other brothers of all his women were killed, later they were imprisoned in the harem). Information in this power struggle gives one side a decisive advantage and thus the events are linked to the dynastic politics. While the military action by this ban was pretty senseless, he got a lucky hit. Still the theory that the sultan didn't have a comfortable life and died because of that needs more than one source because it's a very questionable theses.
• more to come Wandalstouring (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wandalstouring for your review! I agree with you in some point, and disagree in some others. But, I think that after a necessary copyediting, we will see things more alike. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Max-Hellmuth Ostermann

I'm seeking feedback and re-assessment (Start now) on this article I just worked on. I have ordered another book on the man and hope to find some more background on his personnel life. Please let me know how to improve the article. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

I have assessed as a B class article as I believe that it meets the criteria. Well done, by the way. I fixed a typo and a consistency issue with terminology. The only other point I have is about the use of emdashes in the Early life and career section. Per WP:DASH emdashes should be unspaced. Anyway, apologies for the short review. If I get time I will try to come back and give it a bit more time. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

IX Corps (United States)

Looking to promote this GAN upwards. Looking for any and all advice. —Ed!^(talk) 22:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D

It's good to see another good-quality units on a high level headquarters. This article has a good structure and seems well-referenced. My suggestions for how it could be developed further are:

• There's a bit of confusion between the corps' headquarters and the corps and its units. For example, when you write "IX Corps was first constituted on July 29, 1921" you're really only referring to the HQ. Other examples where it's unclear are "The Corps trained at Fort McPherson" (the HQ or units under it as well?), "IX Corps had been moved to Sendai", "In November 1956, over three years after the signing of the armisitce, IX Corps left the front lines, moving to Fort Buckner, Okinawa.", etc.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• What units were subordinate to the Corps HQ during World War II before it deployed overseas?
• "In Leyte, the corps tasked with the planning of Operation Downfall, the invasion of mainland Japan, specifically the island of Kyushu. It was also tasked with planning occupation once Japan surrendered" this makes it sound like the Corps HQ alone had responsibility for planning the invasion and did so concurrently with planning for the occupation of Japan if it surrendered. I'm pretty sure that at least the 6th Army's HQ and MacArthur's HQ were also involved in the development of these plans.
• "IX Corps was assigned as one of four Corps under the command of the Sixth Army, with a strength of 14 divisions." this reads likes the Corps was assigned 14 divisions, which obviously isn't right
• What units did the Corps HQ command on Hokkaidō?
• The photo of Tokyo seems out of place given that the Corps was never active in the city. The Reports of General MacArthur has some excellent PD maps you could use showing the Corps' occupation zone
• The article doesn't ever mention the non-divisional forces under the Corps command (eg, independent regiments, artillery, support units, etc)
• The article needs a bit of a copy-edit as it contains some typos
• Gordon Rottman's book Korean War Order of Battle (see pp. 11-12 in the Google books version for the units subordinate to the Corps HQ during the war) and Shelby Stanton's Order of battle, U.S. Army, World War II seem like highly relevant references. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Damascus (634)

I want this article to be promoted to feature article status, or at least GA class. I need suggestions on right now wht this article is lacking and wht can i do with it so that it may pass the nomination process of FA class. Any suggestions ??? I nominated it for wikipedia peer review, but its dead no one is responding so i went for military history peer review as it users are quick to respond.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

WP:ALT for images is prefernable YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 11:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've fixed the ndashes and grouped hte rpt citations and delinked dates YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 04:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• how to use that "alt" text. i was trying doing this by putting alt= before the image description but it isnt working ... help plz

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 10:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Added exmpale YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 15:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)