Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 61

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62


A-Class review for Operation Commando Hunt

Hi Coordinators: I found an article that was promoted to A-class in 2006 called Operation Commando Hunt, assessment here. I do not feel like the article meets the A-class criteria anymore (or GA criteria) due to uncited passages. Is there a formal process to get this reviewed? Z1720 (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720: I now have deleted both my messages here. It looks like a fail on A and back to a lower assessment to me as well. However, I am a new coordinator and now must admit that I have confused myself about the procedure. I am not sure about what is required. It looks like a more experienced coordinator must provide instruction and advice on this. The information appears to be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Closing an A-Class review#Reappraisals. If there is more information elsewhere, I have missed it. If the procedure is straightforward from these pages, I am missing what exactly the steps should be. Sorry for my confusion and holding up the process. Donner60 (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
@Z1720: Sorry for a bit of wait for an answer to this. Donner60 is absolutely correct. Essentially we would need to create a new A-class review listing the reasons for demotion. If it doesn't look easily rescuable, it will probably just be agreed upon and closed quickly. If there is an editor willing to take it on to improve it back to A-class status, then the review might get more in-depth. A recent-ish example is Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/First Macedonian War. If you are happy to complete this great, otherwise ping me back, and I'll be happy to list it after reviewing the article myself. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I created this thread because it says on WP:MHR under demotion that "If an editor feels that any current A-class article no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be considered for demotion (i.e. it needs a re-appraisal) please leave a message for the project coordinators, who will be happy to help." I skimmed project pages for the reappraisal process, like they have in WP:GAR or WP:FAR, but did not find them. Does the project want to make the above instructions more prominent to help new editors to this process (like me) figure out what to do, or would it be better to let co-ordinators help with individual cases? This is something the project might want to consider. Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
That's fine, and we can have the discussion for the more general case. For this specific case, would you like me to take over setting up an A-class review, or are you happy to do it yourself? The instructions are exactly the same as laid out in WP:MHR for Requesting a review, except that the "reason for nominating the article" should detail why you think it should be demoted, rather than why you think it should be promoted. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Fair question. If we say 'ask a coord' the assumption is that the coords know how to do it. As a coord for nany years, I don't think I ever initiated an A-class reappraisal, and frankly wouldn't know how to do it off-hand. From memory it's not complicated, but it must be written down somewhere. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
@Harrias: I am quite busy today, so I wouldn't initiate it until tomorrow. If someone else wants to start it before me, they are welcome to (and encouraged: less work for me! :P) Z1720 (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for picking this up. I was mostly right on one my three threads; now I know which one! I think it would be best for someone else to start this. I will comment on it. I intend to be more thorough but I doubt I will change my initial impression. Donner60 (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I have now created this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Commando Hunt Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Encouraging ACR reviews

A thought: as the monthly "ACR to-do list" seems to be a thing now, how about nailing it to the top of the project talk page. So everyone passing through will see it and possibly be encouraged to try their hand at a review of something which interests them. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

What are we talking, separate to the task summary or a rejigging of it? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Exactly the same as "ACR to-do list for October 2023" above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Bot issue

Hi everyone, I stumbled to the talk page of 1991 British Army Lynx shootdown where Milhistbot has assessed the page with the task forces National militaries and Military biography which are put in the wrong task force can we fix these? I assume 1991 British Army Lynx shootdown is probably not the only mistake the bot made. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

A fairly safe assumption. The Bot uses AI based on the categories. In this case, Category:War-related deaths led to an assumption of "Biography" and Category:Army aviation units and formations to "National" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I removed the two task forces from the assessment. The subject of the article is clearly not within the scope of either task force. Donner60 (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Have I missed something...?

Like MHOTY? Are we continuing the tradition? I'm afraid I don't have the bandwidth to initiate myself, and I know I'm as late as anyone to notice, but I only realised when preparing the editors' message for his month's Bugle... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: Looks like you're correct, last year HF started the ball rolling on 1 December. I'd be happy to put the posts up for MHOTY and MHNOTY, but because we're a bit late this year we'll need to rejig the timings for the nomination and voting periods a bit. Usually it's 1-15 December nominating, and 16-30 December voting. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: What do we think about something like 9-20 December nominating and 21-30 December voting? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
That works for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, sounds reasonable. Harrias (he/him) • talk 23:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Sounds pretty good, tks P-C. Perhaps though because 9 Dec is well underway for parts of the world, maybe 10-20 Dec and 21-31 Dec? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I've stuck both the spiels up, please feel free to edit them any which-way you feel, as I've just gone and stolen HF's good work from last year! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I trimmed the odd word that's probably been there for ages but otherwise looks great, tks P-C -- never mind my suggestion about the dates, you got the notices up before midnight UTC on 9 Dec, so let's go with that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Well done. I was looking for the instructions on how to do this. Do we have any? Otherwise I will write it up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: I had a brief look but couldn't find any. Ended up searching through the talk archives for last year and going from that. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I think I just copied the text from the year before; the same that I did with the coord elections. 00:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I've added instructions to the handbook. Comments welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Thanks, that'll make future years much simpler. You should probably change the dates back to the 1 December start, as this year is an aberration. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Thanks for opening the voting. I can't quite remember; do we mass message this? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Not sure. Do you know how we mass message? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, we normally do. The instructions are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Using MassMessage for Project Notification. All admins have the rights, plus lots of others. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I've had a go at sending out a message. I've never sent a mass message out before. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Well that went off okay. I am not an admin, but they gave me the MassMessage sender rights so I could send this out. I added the mass message step to the procedure in the coordinators' handbook.
I have created a new academy page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Establishing military historian and newcomer of the year election pages) documenting the procedure for the military historian and newcomer of the year elections, with suggested pro forma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

ACR to-do list for January

That's everything that is more than a month old, although there are also five more recent nominations. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for January

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

January Article Writing Contest

I have done the write up for The Bugle and dished out the Writer's Barnstar for the runner-up, will someone do the honours for the ahem, winner? Thanks, Zawed (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Our banner template

Our project banner template ({{WikiProject Military history}}) is now one of only two project banners that have not been migrated to use {{WPBannerMeta}}. That's probably because it is one of the oldest, dating back to 2005, and one of the most complicated. DFlhb (talk · contribs) has been working on producing a version that uses WPBannerMeta. This is incomplete, but has progressed quite well. You can read the discussion at Template talk:WikiProject Military history and the WPBannerMeta version is available at {{WikiProject_Military history/sandbox}}. The idea is to make it completely compatible with the existing template, so the switch over will not be noticeable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for February

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

It's not. I've removed the tag. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

ACR to-do list for March 2023

I think this one could probably be closed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Agree with Gog above - opposes from them and Harrias, combined with my opinion that it barely scrapes over - I don't see this going anywhere at this point. Hog Farm Talk 17:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Contest results for March Bugle

Hi guys, if some kind person would like to add this in here, that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Hello...?!
Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: - I've slung something together for the Bugle. Hog Farm Talk 15:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I have done all of the backroom work for February, apart from awarding the prize for first place ... Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Done now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

ACR to-do list for April 2023

AutoCheck report for March

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for April

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


ACR to-do list for May 2023

The following four nominations are all from February. All only need a little more work.

There are six nominations from March, and just three from April. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Contest results for May Bugle

Hi guys, could someone pls add the results here at their earliest...? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

A Class Medal Backlog

There are currently three A class Medal nominations awaiting approval. Catlemur (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Also: I approved all the awards in the January to March 2023 reviewing tallies but my own. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I've taken care of that as well. Hog Farm Talk 21:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Rhodesia nonsense

Eyes on Fireforce, please. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 16:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Sigh, Landserpulp's Rhodiepulp's influence never seems to let go. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
And for the record, the number of neutral, reliable sources being used on that article are somewhere between 1 and 0, trending towards the latter figure. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for May

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I remember manually assessing this as B. What's more to add for B class?--Catlemur (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
@Catlemur: The change to RAFO Masirah in the infobox isn't referenced anywhere in text. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for June

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

B class. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


AutoCheck report for July

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

ACR to-do list for June 2023

Seven reviews open since March:

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

ACR to-do list for July 2023

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

GAN and ACR

We have an article currently nominated at both GAN and ACR. This seems odd, but I can't find any prohibition. Is there one? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I immediately thought "of course there is!", only to find no mention of such a rule. Featured Article candidacy states "An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.", and if ACR doesn't have a similar rule hiding somewhere already I would advocate that we create one. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I went through the same process, and concluded that I was just being blind. I would agree that in the absence of such a rule one should be introduced. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps because we've been through this multiple times before, most recently in 2021. I would favour adding a rule that says:
An article may not nominated for an A-Class review and be a Featured article candidate, undergoing Peer review, or a Good article nomination at the same time.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Works for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 Done Changed the instructions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

How to start A-class reappraisal

I can't seem to find specific instructions to start an A-class reappraisal (I want to open a discussion about demoting a current A-class article.) How is this done? WP:MHR just says to leave a message here. The article in question is Panzer IV. Schierbecker (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Schierbecker: - essentially, you just move the original ACR page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Panzer IV/archive1 or something like that, fix the link in the article history template so that the link to the old A-class review links to the proper old page, and then create a new ACR like if you were creating a regular nomination, just make sure to clearly indicate that it's a reassessment nomination. Hog Farm Talk 19:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
People had trouble with the procedure, so the instructions were commented out and replaced with one to request the coordinators handle it. I've nominated it for you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look this weekend. Schierbecker (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Majestic Titan

I was wondering whether anyone has any opinions on the current status of OMT. It isn't a project that I've involved myself in, but I've found myself wondering at its progress. Is it stagnating, or are people still churning away in the background? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - at least from my observation, it seems to have stagnated a bit. Several of the earliest articles there have required additional work - Wikipedia:Featured article review/Armament of the Iowa-class battleship/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Missouri (BB-63)/archive1, and the still-open Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Wisconsin (BB-64)/archive2. Hog Farm Talk 03:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

ACR to-do list for August 2023


That's the oldest eight noms, bar one also nom'ed at GAN and one all but finished. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Upcoming Coordinator Elections

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: We need to start putting together our plan for the forthcoming coordinator elections if we want to get them off the ground in a timely manner in September. Do we want to retain the current number, the 14/14 election format for nominations and voting, and have it run entirely in September? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Both 14 and 14 seem a little long to me. But, from memory, when I suggested 10 and 10 last year it didn't get anywhere. In any event, I think ending on 28 September works. Thanks for remembering this Tom. (Oddly I stumbled across something by you earlier today and went to your user page to check how active you were. Question answered. ) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I think what we did last year worked fine. It also wouldn't hurt for us to keep in mind to suggest running for any editors who we think would have potential in a coord role; I for one am undecided about standing for re-election again or not. Hog Farm Talk 00:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I thought last year's elections format worked fine. I don't plan on standing for re-election, I've been sidetracked by lots of business in RL as well as other interests on WP, and I'm not as much of an asset to the project in a leadership role at this time. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I reckon the last three bullet points there cover it well enough; if there's some sort of particular further requirements I don't know if they're really that important if the documentation is lost/nonexistant. Hog Farm Talk 20:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: - it's probably best if everyone starts indicating if they intend to run for re-election or not soon. Hog Farm Talk 03:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
The nomination period is meant to start tomorrow, so CPA-5, Iazyges, Indy beetle, and Zawed may want to put down if they're standing or not. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Just a further heads up for those who have put themselves as standing for re-election that the voting period begins in two days. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: - I have closed the election and notified the winners with congratulation messages on their talk pages. Some of you might want to add your own messages, especially to Peacemaker67, out latest coordinator emeritus. I have updated WikiProject Military history/Coordinators and our notification list, and placed an announcement of the results in The Bugle. I have updated Category:WikiProject Military history coordinators to add and remove editors where I can but I am not an admin, so if one of you that is an admin could edit Parsecboy's user page to remove him from the category that would be great. I have also updated WikiProject Military history/Academy/Establishing coordinator election pages with the post-election steps. If I have missed anything, let me know. Finally, now that Hog Farm is no longer a coordinator, I have nominated him for a WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards#Hog Farm Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Hawkeye, your housekeeping is greatly appreciated. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I've fixed it - apparently I forgot when my last term ended! Parsecboy (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
And I second Pickersgill-Cunliffe. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree. Donner60 (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Contest results for August Bugle

Hi guys, could someone pls add the results here at their earliest...? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll see if I remember how to do the contest closeout this month. Hog Farm Talk 22:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
I think I did everything right. Hog Farm Talk 22:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Tks HF, looks good except are we not awarding the Writer's Barnstar for second place (even though here were two first places)? I'm sure we've had ties for first place before but I can't recall how we handled it. If anyone can help out here without us ploughing through the archives that'd be great. Given we have a tie for second place as well it'd certainly make for an unusual situation if we could award four gongs at once...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Well having trawled Jan-Jul/Dec 2012-2022 I can find one instance of a dual Chevrons award for first place and no Writer's Barnstar, so we're following the same principle this month. I think the usual thing in sport is to drop a medal if there's a tie in the preceding place but knowing our propensity for IAR I thought I'd check... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
My train of thought was based on the gap between the two tied for first and then the next highest-scoring. I figured we give out two medals a month, and the two highest scorers stood apart from the others, so that was the best way to go. Hog Farm Talk 13:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Heads up

Vami IV has requested that I mention here that he has moved apartments and does not currently have access to internet or a computer. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Contest Entry Class Ratings

In reviewing contest entries, I have encountered a few entry class ratings that I think should be higher and have advised as such once or twice recently. In order to be sure that my analysis is correct, I ask for advice on whether my evaluations of these entries is proper for the contest. The first circumstance is where a related, but different, Wikiproject, such as WP Ships, rates an article lower than the current Military History Project class. The MH Project class could even be "none." My opinion is that the rating by the other project is not to be consider for the contest by this project. Another situation is where a B or GA request is made but before the review is completed, the MilHistBot puts a rating on the talk page. My opinion is that the bot rating should be disregarded and the entry class should be the rating (including "none") at the time the higher rating was requested. I have found nothing in the contest rules that specifically addresses these points but I think my interpretations are the reasonable ones. Thanks for your consideration of these points. @Simongraham: I ping simongraham because I have given an opinion that he should have a lower entry class rating for a recent entry and he will be interested in the answer. Donner60 (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I've always thought that we should only be using the MILHIST project ratings for the contest. We have a bit of a nonstandard assessment scheme, so what other projects have articles it isn't really relevant for internal MILHIST scorekeeping purposes. As to bot re-ratings - on my entries, I've always gone with what the bot rated it as while the GA nomination was still in process, unless there's a reason why the bot assessment has been or is likely to be challenged. This recently came up with me for Talk:CSS Winslow when the bot assessed it as b-class after I listed it for GAN. At least to me, it makes sense to go with the actual assessment at the end of the month. The GAN for Winslow has been picked up already, but I had no guarantee that it would be before month end, which would have created the awkward situation in the next month of me either claiming it as a creation from scratch for September when it had technically been bot-assessed as B in August, or just not claiming the points from nothing to B class. Hog Farm Talk 04:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
If the editor's work is finished and all the assessments are later made in the same month, it seems to me that the rules/guidelines allow the editor to increase the total points from the number when the request was made to the final total. Reducing the points because a bot or unrequested assessment has been made seems to me to be an overly strict interpretation, perhaps incorrect(?) and in my view not especially fair. The editor has done the work which results in the higher rating. Changes in the number of points due to reassessment are allowed under the rules. The higher assessment in these types of entries are being made based on the original work, not additional work to increase the rating from the intervening assessment. I stand to be corrected, of course. I think this is a scenario where my interpretation could be correct and within the spirit of what the contest is trying to achieve, higher assessments. This is the most likely scenario but your example is different.
Your example is different because all actions are not in the same month. The interpretation is more ambiguous and a little harder to make because of this difference. I must admit that I have tried to write a sensible interpretation, and a possibly suggested rewritten rule for this and at least one other scenario, but I have deleted them. I need to start over and will post them as soon as I can state them in a clear and concise way. The entry that spurred this post includes both the other project's rating as a start, which I was confident should be disregarded, and the intervening bot entry which I also think should be disregarded because it is like the scenario in the previous paragraph. I think that I should not interpret this and a few other possible scenarios without discussion and advice, however. Donner60 (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The MilhistBot will not attempt to assess the article until it is tagged with the MilHist template. It will not override an existing assessment. It only operates on unassessed MilHist articles. It uses our project's assessment rules. If an article is rated B it is sent for human reassessment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that covers the entry that raised the question. I have been doing checking for several months. I ask because I don't want to make a mistake if I see an unusual case. I expect to have more entries in the future but my questions arose from my doing checking, not as a contributor. Donner60 (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for August

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The ACR process is in a really bad way

We currently have quite a lot of open ACRs that haven't received any reviews for months. From quick looks, these articles seem to be worthy of nominations. I can't recall the ACR process being in such a bad way before, and it seems a good idea for the coordinators to consider options to turn this around. An obvious option is to more strongly encourage nominators to review other nominations, either on the line of FAC where this is an informal expectation or GAN where it's required. A drive of some sort might also be helpful. Views? Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't look too good. The oldest nom is from six months ago, and it looks to be pretty good quality. Hawkeye is providing some great leadership and getting stuck in, and you have done several too. With HF going inactive, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John Bullock Clark could be closed as withdrawn at least. I'm about to have some surgery and will then be laid up for a bit, so I'll take a crack at a couple myself to see if we can get a couple moving. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Also hoping to get more involved. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
It's not really just for the coordinators to pitch in. It's frankly disappointing that few of the people who've nominated currently-open nominations seem to have reviewed any other articles recently. Nick-D (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, please go ahead and close Clark. I don't see myself being able to review any ACRs or respond to concerns on Clark in a timely manner for awhile. Hog Farm Talk 21:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I have closed it. Feel free to renominate any time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
@Nick-D: Hope you have a swift recovery. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm feeling fine, but am about to go overseas if you've seen posts from me about being short of Wikipedia time in the future! Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for September

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

ACR to-do list for October 2023

There were no new nominations in September, which may reflect pessimism concerning how long the process is taking. Let's see if we can clear this backlog this month. I have been away for a week but the football is over now and I am back. I will try to look at some of these myself this week. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for October

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for November

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

ACR to-do list for November 2023

AutoCheck report for December

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

AutoCheck report for January 2024

The following articles were rated as B class by automatic assessment:

Change assessment to start; additional citations needed, heavy reliance on a single source, foreign language which can't be checked, all but one source appears to be public domain but run-on sentences and some colloquial wording suggest direct translations, some clarifications needed as a result, changed b1 and b4 to no. 07:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC) Donner60 (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Archive_61&oldid=1232601916"