Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Review/Archive 1

Archive 1

Suggestion

I've noticed that many people who request reviews here do so, but don't review other articles at the same time. I've also noticed that the people who take the time to review are the same one or two people... I would propose a change to the policy here. If you post a request for peer review then you agree to perform a peer review on at least 3 other articles. This would ensure that more eyes see the nominated articles.Balloonman 01:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As someone who is guilty of this (although, in my defense, I've only submitted one article for review), I think that would be a good policy, but maybe make it 2 instead of 3. Or maybe just one for one...--Nobunaga24 02:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs to be more than 1:1 or even 2:1... the problem with this page is that people don't contribute and articles go forever without having people make comments. When I ask for a PR, I always try to look at 3 or 4 articles as thanks to those who take time to review my articles. At 3:1 you are ensuring that most articles will get at least 1 or 2 more reviews than they are currently getting. If it's 2:1 or 1:1 then you are going to have only the shorter/more interesting articles get reviewed. I would also include A-Class review in this criteria (but not FAC as we do not want to be perceived as [wp:meat].)Balloonman 02:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that, in a volunteer project, requiring certain levels of participation isn't the most useful thing to do. ;-)

On a more practical level: while we do need more reviewers, keep in mind that a significant portion of review requests comes from newer editors, who may not feel comfortable doing a review themselves (and who may not have the experience with Wikipedia article work to provide a substantial one, for that matter). I could certainly agree with encouraging people to review some articles when they submit their own, but I don't want that to become a hard requirement. Kirill Lokshin 03:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite. I don't think there is any benefit to attempting to require editors to review articles when they submit one for review - Kirill's comments aside, what do we do if they don't review any articles? Or if they review only two instead of three? Do we refuse to review the article they submitted? Carom 04:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I focus my Wikipedia efforts on expanding contents. Honestly, I'm neither very interested in reviewing something I don't find engaging nor comfortable commenting on quality of material I'm not familiar with (I do try to contribute to aircraft-related reviews, however). If this requirement goes into effect, I will simply stop submitting articles for A-class review and go straight to FA nomination bypassing this WikiProject altogether. Or I can just as happily tag everything as "B-class" even if the quality is higher and not deal with the whole review issue at all. I know this sounds very crabby but the reality is that there are few editors on WP who really expand contents (and a very small handful of those do aircraft work) -- not to say that endlessly tweaking grammar or RC patrolling are unimportant, but WP is not going to grow on grammar changes alone. Everyone on WP has their own niche. Sounds like Milhist has a couple of people who are willing to do feedback and reviews -- great for them and their efforts are appreciated! But please leave me alone and let me do my writing. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Good case in point of why trying to add requirements would be counterproductive. ;-)

(Having said that, would you find having a note in the instructions encouraging—but not requiring—people to help out with reviewing when they submit their own articles to be objectionable as well?) Kirill Lokshin 11:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a good thing... that we ask people to review 3 articles when they make a request... I agree, there isn't anything we can do for people who refuse to do so... or won't review and article (if they did they might just say "Good Article" and call that a review.) But I think we need, at bare minimum, a reminder to people that when they ask for something to be reviewed that others are looking for help in a similar manner and thus they should consider helping somebody else out.Balloonman 14:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, encouragement to contribute is always good, particularly with Peer Reviews which tend to be more labor-intensive and usually represent a far less-polished product (more grind, less enjoyable reading). Perhaps to expedite the Peer Review, someone should make a template that pastes the text "Good start but please read WP:LEAD, WP:FOOT, and WP:CITE and make the appropriate corrections." That's what the first post ends up being anyway. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 20:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeking advice about peer review request

I want to request a peer review of an article I have been working on but I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do. The problem is that I have very little time to address the comments that will arise (let alone reciprocate with a peer review contribution of my own), so it is not fair to ask for this effort from others, especially as the article is quite long. Should I submit now (with this caveat) and fix it up as and when (it could be a month before I have the time again) or should I hold off until I can devote more time to it? Thanks. --FactotEm 13:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to submit it now. The peer review process is not designed to be very fast-paced; there's certainly nothing unusual about having a review open for a month before the comments are addressed. Kirill Lokshin 16:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --FactotEm 16:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking why 2nd Tracks doesn't use Letters E, F, G, H and 3rd Tracks I, K, L, M. The same with the other LAV's Combat Engineers, Recon Units. POC: Roderick Summers @ roderick.summers@us.army.mil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.252.67 (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Image:Symbol a class.svg

There is a nice image we could incorporate into A-Class reviews.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Trade

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Correction and Detention Facilities

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection before December 2008, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 16:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Dear sirs / madams, I have requested a peer review for Cyprus Navy and Marine Police article, but the request has not appeared below the instruction box, on the project page for submitting peer reviews. Could someone help me resollve this please? Many thanks

Copperhead331 (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It was still there; it seems you blanked the review page with this edit. Was that your intention? Regards. Woody (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Fact or fiction?

The Battle of Mazandaran FPC depicts a fictional battle. I thought that was outside MILHIST scope. Durova^Charge! 22:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It may or may not be in the general case, depending on how divorced from real historical influence the topic is; but, yes, this one looks like it's not in scope. Kirill 23:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:54, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

LETTERING OF SUPPORT BATTALION COMPANYS AS PER INFANTRY LINE COMPANYS

What the reasoning behind 2nd and 3rd Tracks not using (E, F, G, H) and (I, K, L, M,) respectfully, same as LAV's, Combat Engineers, Recon, and some Supply units?

POC: RODERICK SUMMERS SR. SGT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.252.67 (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Library?

I have recently added a list of some of the books in my personal library to my home page, mainly for my convenience when useng them (so I can just copy and paste). I am happy to look up relevant things from those references for others - so long as the load does not get too heavy <grin>. However, when adding a book to the list today it occurred to me that perhaps it might be helpful if members of the Military task force who are interested could list titles in a central place, presumably a sub page from the main project page, where relevant references owned by members could be listed as well as who has them (obviously we would need to allow that some titles will be owned by more than one member). This might help find out hard to locate references. Any thoughts on this idea? - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nick, there's a list of libraries which you can add yours to at WP:MHL#LIBRARY. Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

ACR(eview) is under review but the link on the departments is under assessment.

Has anyone noticed that the ACR info is listed under the Assessment department, but the actual list of articles for ACR are listed under the Review department? Okay, while that makes sense, if we are on a review page, and try to go back to the other articles, we end up in the Assessment department, not the review department.

This seems counter intuitive. For example, from here backward leads to here, not to the other ACRs here.

so if I finish a review, and try to go backward to do another review, it doesn't take me to the other articles that need reviewing, but rather to the assessment page. So to find the other articles that need reviewing (either peer reviews or ACR), I have to start over in the departments. The requirements for AC are here, but the list of articles needing review are here. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

whatever bot?

isn't taking automatically the FA articles that pass off the Review Alert box. Is this supposed to be automatic? Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It is manually linked to {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}. I'll make a run-through of the reviews now. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Help with Article related Tools

Hi, I know for a fact that there are certain bots/scripts/tools out there that can allow you to find Readability stats of an article or find Ovelinking and so on. Can someone please help me in finding these ? I have searched really hard for those but can't seem to find any place for the same. Thanks in advance. '  Perseus 71 ^talk 18:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

WPMILHIST Review alerts display issue

Template talk:WPMILHIST Review alerts redirects to here, so I am opening this here.

I've been advised that placing {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} on my Talk page would display the WPMILHIST Review alerts list, but it does not work. I have tried several variations. Eventually i find that {{template:WPMILHIST Review alerts}} does display that list, but left or center-justified and inserting itself at the top of my Talk page, which is unacceptable to me. I do have other review list boxes displayed, at the right, in the order that i choose to list them.

Perhaps the code for the review alert box should be revised overall, or to allow options for right justifying and controlling placement. Hope this is helpful for anyone to know. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting; I've never seen that template show up in any position other than a right-justified float. Out of curiosity, are you using a typical browser, or something unusual? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

GTCs in "Non-article featured content candidates"?

I know this project doesn't regard highly good-class content, but since GTs and FTs are very similar in terms of requirements, could you guys also add GTCs to the section mentioned above? Nergaal (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

GTCs are not "featured", so I don't think so. The line was drawn out regardless of similarity. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Having said that, there has been discussion about moving towards paying more attention to GAs, and closer integration of the other G* processes is probably something that would be rolled into that. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it could do any harm to have a discussion either at COORD or the main talkpage about whether people would find it useful. Woody (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

In regards to this, I just made a comment on the Majestic Titan drive talkpage: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/Operation Majestic Titan. The long story short is that some parts of the wikiproject encourage extremely skimpy GAs. That would me more acceptable if the project was small, but flooding the GA with just-over-the-line articles from a reputable project like this is a bit disappointing. Please try to consider dealing with this. Nergaal (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Variations in quality and the actual rigour of the review process are one of the main issues that have always held back GAs in terms of recognition within the MILHIST project. That said, I have avoided pretty much avoided GA for quite some time so I don't quite know the current situation (and this is getting off topic slightly). Woody (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wendell Fertig

Would someone please archive the Wendell Fertig peer review. I'm apparently desirable that I not do so as I was told that I "screwed up following the directions in the worst way [he's] ever seen." Thank you. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thomas. I've done this. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)