Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2007/Failed

Failed

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Heuschrecke 10

• Prior nomination here.

I believe that this is ready for an A-Class marking. I have changed it since my last comment at 13 December 2007. I have added a reference, and have completed it I believe. Dreamafter ^Talk 19:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • Why is "Geschützwagen IV" in parenthasis in the opening paragraph? There doesn't seem to be a reason for it, although I do not know that for a fact.  Done
  • Can you provide a standard measurement for you metrically challenged audience? I know that 155 mm is roughly six inches, but I do not know what 105 mm equates to in inches.  Done
  • Would it be at all possible to put the armour information in the infobox? I grant you that would be a lot of work, but it has been done on our battleship artilces.  Done
  • It seems suprisingly short, although I will not object on the basis of length I do feel that there could be some unmentioned information. For example, where was the vehical to be produced (town would be good, factory would be better), how much would it have costed (projected cost would be ok), was it cancelled in favored of another vehical or some other reason, etc.  Doing...
• Otherwise, it looks ok. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. A few sentences start with "it" and instead of having several one-paragraph sub-sections, they could be combined into "Development" and "Specifications" sections without the sub-headings. Cla68 (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

1. 1.  Done
   2. Which sections should be merged, and why?
   3. Thanks for the help fixing it. It will be done, so that it can get A-Class. Dreamafter ^Talk 21:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. See reasons below. Bukvoed (talk) 07:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The article IMHO would benefit from some reordering. Instead of the design section, which mixes development history with technical description, and one more technical section armament and propulsion, I'd like to see a section wholly dedicated to the development history and another with all the technical stuff.
    •  Done I think.
      • Yes, it's better now, though I think more can be done. For example, I think I'd incorporate Armament and propulsion into design (simple merge ? subsection ?).
        •  Done
  • I failed to understand what exactly do M60 and M104 AVLBs owe to the Heuschrecke rather than to WWII era bridgelayers such as Covenanter bridgelayer.
    • It is for the modern equivalents, I will add the link above in to the article, as one from that time.  Done
      • That's how I understand the situation, please correct me if I am wrong. There were WWII era bridgelayers (Covenanter is just one example, there were bridgelayers based on Churchill, Pz IV, Sherman and possibly other chassis; at least some were developed earlier the the Heuschrecke). Then there is Heuschrecke, a WWII era SP howitzer fitted with a mechanism for lifting its turret; the mechanism may have been similar to these used on WWII era bridgelayers. Then there are modern bridgelayers, they are pretty direct descendants of WWII era bridgelayers and seemingly don't use any notable principle or technology that was specific for Heuschrecke. Now if I am right, I thick the section should simply be removed. If I am wrong and modern bridgelayers do owe somehing historically or technologically to Heuschrecke, I think you should be more specific.
        •  Done
  • Most of the sources are anonymous internet pages or other wikipedia articles. Some sources do not seem to support the footnoted text. E.g. the article from Achtung Panzer explicitly states that design never reached the production stage; the The Air and Missile Defense Journal article on PzIV (actually a copy from Wikipedia, so it's probably better idea to link directly to the source :)) does not even mention the competing Alkett/Rhinemetall-Borsig vehicle.
    • I fail to understand what must be fixed here... Sorry...
      • I'll try to be more specific. 1) The link to Panzer IV article in The Air and Missile Defense Journal link should be replaced with internal link to Panzer IV.  Done 2) The aforementioned article serves as a source for the competition section about a Alkett/Rhinemetall-Borsig vehicle; however I failed to find any mention of that Alkett/Rhinemetall-Borsig vehicle in the article. Unless I missed something, the footnote should be removed.  Done 3) If possible, try to locate better sources than anonymous web pages (I understand that it may not be trivial). May be sources listed in the fortunecity article ?
        • They are already in the article, but this provides them in a concise form.
  • Type: Prototype self-propelled gun or self-propelled Howitzer and Artillery (with three footnotes) - seems unnecessary long and confusing. IMHO Self-propelled howitzer would be enough.
    •  Done
      • I still don't see why both howitzer and artillery are mentioned, After all, every howitzer is an artillery piece.
        • Pardon? It is not like that now. At least I think it is...
  • I am not sure, but may be it would be better to move the armor layout to separate table?
    • It was, but it was mentioned that that would just be to "tabley", so it was moved to the infobox.
      • OK, ignore my remark.
  • As mentioned above, the article is rather short. Perhaps more info can be added about development history or more technical info?
    •  Doing...
  • It would be nice to have walkaround photos of the vehicle. And may be some historical photos too. I understand that I probably ask for too much, so please ignore this remark... unless you happen to have these photos...
    •  Done
  • I think that the leading section is supposed to be a short overview of the important points of the article; any information that appears only in the leading section should be duplicated somewhere below.
    • Like what information?
  • I was somewhat confused by the sentence Design lasted from May 1943 to May 1944 and had reached the production stage. The dates seem to be in conflict with the developed by Krupp-Gruson in 1942 to 1943; production stage (I think) typically means that the vehicle entered mass production which this one didn't.
    •  Done I think.
  • Of course my understanding of A-class criteria may be poor, my remarks may be too pedantic, my suggestions may be downright wrong et cetera. Just to give a few examples of good articles on similar topics, I personally like Jagdtiger, Sturmtiger and SU-152. The first one IMHO would easily pass an A-class review, the other two lack footnotes but otherwise seem OK.
• Object I have to say that the Fortune City website does not meet RS and I also suspect that the George Parada website "Achtung Panzer" also appears to be an enthusiast's hobby site. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Then a lot of articles should have the "Achtung Panzer" references removed. Dreamafter ^\*/ 19:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Heuschrecke 10

I have nominated this article, because I believe that it is as good as it can get, and I know that all of you may scream "longer!", but I have looked for more information than is contained, and I could not find any. I also believe that this article is of great quality. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 02:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Clue - look further than the Internet, and I'm sure you'll find a great deal more on this vehicle. Certainly the article would be improved with dead-tree references. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment You'll find a bit more information in Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World war Two Chamberlain/Doyle/Jentz.

Should the official/technical designation for this tank 10.5cm leFH18/1 L/28 auf Waffenträger GW IVb be in the lead somewhere?

An odd feature of the tank was that the lifting gantry for the turret was on the tank itself which you can see in the picture in the infobox. You need to mention this. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all that has been mentioned, so I will withdraw this, and get a peer review first. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 21:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of Baia

Another important battle of Moldavian Prince Stephen the Great. I would say it easily meets all criteria for A-class. --Eurocopter tigre 17:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for the moment. I have left some comments on the Talk:Battle of Baia. Summary: Some copyedit issues and POV bias/weasel words. Woodym555 17:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Improvements have been made per Woodym's comments. --Eurocopter tigre 18:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Support now as long as the issues on your talk page are dealt with. I have given it a thorough copyedit to remove the "narrative". I also fixed the refs and the infobox. Good work overall. Meets A-Class. Might need another copyedit before FA though. Woodym555 21:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Yep, I checked all the links and the Chilia link has been changed to Kilia, Ukraine. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Good work. Cla68 (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, I'm afraid. My specific concerns are the lead, notes and references, and foreign language sourcing.

1. The lead is rather short, see WP:LEAD. It should summarise the rest of the article. I'd expect it to be between two and four paragraphs.
2. Notes and References is a much bigger problem, see WP:CITE. References should refer to a specific publication or a specific website, with sufficient detail to identify it. Every note should cross-refer to a reference (most people use Author's surname, plus page number of the book). So for example, when citing: Iorga, Nicolae. Istoria lui Ştefan cel Mare 1904 (new edition 1966), Bucharest. simply have <ref>Iorga, p 94</ref>. This makes it much easier to tie the notes to the publication/website. Citing Miechowski, Maciej. Chronica Polonorum. is not helpful unless it links to the specific page. You should really have retrieval dates. See Second Ostend Raid and Victoria Cross (Canada) for good examples of book and web citing. If you want to be really neat, you can wikilink them like here Battle of the Gebora so that the Ref is highlighted when you click on the Cite.
3. Language issues, see WP:RSUE. I'd like to see more English language sources. Otherwise, at least the key points needs to cite the original language text for comparison.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding your last point, per WP:RSUE,English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality - i'm afraid in this case we don't have any english source of equal quality available. As for the rest of the points, I will try to fix them on Friday, because my time doesn't permit to do this sooner. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Absolutely, entirely understood. But as I mentioned above WP:RSUE does explain what to do when you translate text yourself and you don't follow that procedure here :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed the refs and reformatted the lead in two paragraphs (however, I didn't changed many things, as I think the current lead covers the article quite well). --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• [Chuckle] I had slightly more extensive revision in mind :) The lead is supposed to summarise the article. Perhaps mention the affair had been simmering for a hunded years? The chevauchées and sieges that preceded the battle? Something about the politics? The lead should be summarising the goodies that follow.

• You haven't quite fixed the refs and you do need to because WP:V is policy not a guideline. As an example, Długosz is normally listed as a ref like this (note change of spelling of author's name to correspond to actual English book title):

Dlugosz, Jan The Annals of Jan Dlugosz: A History of Eastern Europe from A.D. 965 to A.D. 1480 (trans. Michael, Maurice) IM Publications LLP, Chichester 1997 ISBN: 1901019004

You might consider using {{cite book}} for the paper sources and {{cite web}} for the internet ones. For web sources, you need a link pointing to the specific page, plus a retrieval date. At the moment, you just lump them together with a link to an index. Some footnotes (EPITOME RERUM HUNGARICARUM; Ioannes de Thurocz - CHRONICA HUNGARORUM) don't have corresponding sources. One of the footnotes (Moldavian-German Chronicle, The) isn't mentioned as a source though it is on the website index as Cronica moldo-germană. All this needs linking together.

• You do need to address the issue of the non-English sources as it is WP policy not a guideline, I'm afraid. WP:RSUE explains it. You don't need to include the text in full, just key bits.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

C-5 Galaxy

A good article on the one of the largest US military transport plane. It would be nice for WPMILHIST to have some more A/FA class aircraft articles. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The first paragraph in "Development" states that the U.S. Army directed the development of the C-5. Was it really them and not the U.S. Air Force? Cla68 (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The Army provided the main requirements (cargo). The wording probably gives the Army too much prominence. I wrote the first 2-3 paragraphs of the Deve section with the best info I had at the time & referenced it. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, the lead is far too short, large parts of the article (especially in the middle of Development, the first paragraph of Operational history, etc.) are totally unreferenced, the article is far too reliant on lists (bulleted or non-bulleted) rather than prose, the references aren't consistently formatted, and the article doesn't flow (possibly as a result of having far too much information presented in list form compared to prose). I don't this article is ready yet. Daniel 00:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The Design section is the main list thing and really shouldn't be. The Incidents and accidents section is done in list form for most of the Aviation project. No changing that part. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose, article needs to be referenced better to make it a solid B-class. It really needs more history info after the early years. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose under much the same reasoning as Daniel. The development section is far too listy. The single sentence paragraphs are unneccessary, try merging them, and then referencing them. The quotes and figures should be refenced. The features section could be turned into prose. It doesn't seem A-Class yet. Woodym555 (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Daniel. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gheorghe Tătărescu

This article is an A-class on WP:Biography. As Tătărescu was mostly a political figure, I think it's notable for the MilHist project because he served as a Minister of War in 1934. He also had a very important activity during WWII, especially fighting with the Iron Guard. --Eurocopter tigre 12:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• In all honesty, I'm not sure that he's really in-scope for us. Did he do anything substantial as Minister of War? Otherwise, he seems like a regular politician that happened to be active during a war, but had no direct involvement in military affairs; and we've traditionally considered such people to be outside our purview. Kirill 13:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I will take a look in a minute, but you should know that i'm not the person who assessed it as a WPMILHIST article. --Eurocopter tigre 13:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Yep, I know. You'd probably be the best person to decide whether he had any real military involvement, though, as you're probably more knowledgeable about the topic than the rest of us. :-) Kirill 13:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Would the fact that he is the one who accepted the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina (a military action) + his activity during the war be significant for us? --Eurocopter tigre 13:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Mmm, not quite sure. Did he have some particular role (other than being Prime Minister at the time and voting to accept the occupation) in the events? If not, I'd be hesitant to include him based on that alone; it'd be a bit like including a member of Congress only because he voted to declare war on Japan, for example. Kirill 15:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, but as a prime minister during the war, I think you are still very involved in it. Just think at Churchill, etc. Sincerelly, I don't really know what to say, so I'll let you decide if this article is notable for WPMILHIST or not. --Eurocopter tigre 16:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's true to a certain; but Churchill was a pretty hands-on PM as regards to military planning, and it's not clear from the article whether Tătărescu played a significant role in military decision-making. I'd lean towards considering him outside of our scope. I may be being too strict, though, I'll leave a note for the other coordinators to drop by here so that we can get some other opinions before doing anything. Kirill 17:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but he might had significant role behind the scene, as a prime minister, for example negotiating with the weapons providers and similar things. But, let's see what the other people say. --Eurocopter tigre 17:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for myslef, I tend to view any position held at or above the rank or General/Admrial to be within our scope even if the person exercised little if any authority in the position, or will mark an article as within our scope if WPBIO has already marked the article as being within the scope of their war task force. In this case: If he was war minister for a while I would be incline to conclude that he falls within our projects scope,a lthough I could firm this up a little more if the article on the romanian war ministry was more detailed - In particular, I would like to know how the ministry chooses its head and what powers the head exercises. The same issues apply to other articles as well; since the U.S. constitution stipulates that the President is to the Command and Chief of the army and the Navy all past and future presidents could be construed to fall within our scope. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that's a reasonable approach. In this case, though, it's not quite clear from the what his role as Minister of War entailed. He is listed as holding that position in 1934, but became leader of the cabinet (and presumably Prime Minister?) in January of that year. I'm wondering whether the position was one he held only during the five-day period under Constantin Anghelescu, in which case it seems too trivial to warrant including him unless he actually did something significant in those five days. Kirill 03:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose: Thats the problem here; we don't know what being the war minister here entails. It could also be a sign that the article isn't ready for A-class review yet; if we have to deabte the merits of this rather than read and comment than I dare say perhaps more content is needed in the article to clarify the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I took a read-through. I tend to agree with Kirill that inclusion in WPMILHIST at this point is primarily by association (cabinet position) rather than by anything discussed in the article in any detail. For the article to squarely fall under military history, to TomStar81's point, I think it needs a good more detail substantiating Tătărescu's specific involvements with the military or his effect on military actions. The current focus is pretty much all on politics and foreign policy. PētersV

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Soviet occupation of Romania

An excellent article made on a quite sensitive and controversial topic. There were some discussions in the past regarding its neutrality, but the problems are finnaly solved and this article can become an A-class in my opinion. --Eurocopter tigre 18:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Short, stubby (in comparison to the necessities of such a topic), incompletely referenced, unformatted, and far from comprehensive. Several texts cited as references are not actually cited in the text (at all!). Several MoS issues (such as the use of "recently", such as the POV wordplay on people's names - the old Nicolschi issue, such as not citing direct quotes, such as using a bulleted list instead of formatted text). The article, right or wrong, is subject to a dispute, which means that it is not stable content. It may get there eventually, but at this stage it has serious problems. Dahn 04:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know about you other opinions, but "short and stubby"!?... It has 3000 words, and refers to a bunch of {{main}} articles, Romania during World War II and King Michael Coup, Paris Peace Treaties, 1947, Expulsion of Germans from Romania after World War II, Securitate, SovRoms... It is a WP:SS article...--victor falk 14:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, exactly. There is much more to be said for this article to be A-class. Note for example that there is disproportionate coverage of the first years, while I fail to note any in-depth discussion about how the occupation ended. It is, at the moment, a lead section and an array of summaries. The literature surrounding this topic is immense, and I think that it would be quite tactless for this project to endorse an article that does not at least look into what some of the seminal works on this subject have to say (I'm saying this as an editor who has contributed much to related articles, including one cited as a main article in one of the sections). This, of course, should be taken together with the other points I made. I would like to point out that what I presented were not just "my opinions", but factual problems, including vague and incomplete references and the fact that references are not cited in the text.

The article still needs a lot of work in order to become a B-class. I have to congratulate some of the contributors for the work they have done so far, but I'm sure they all know that there is still a lot to be done. Dahn 14:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article needs more citations, some sections don't have any. Also, there are a lot of one paragraph sections that need to either be combined or expanded. Furthermore, there's no "aftermath" section or something like that to explain what happened after the Soviet occupation ended and its legacy or influence on the future of the country. A great start on the article but not quite there yet. Cla68 21:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Given the article size in the absence of the Notes section and everything below it I would say that you have enough citations at the moment to meet A-class standards; although I would like to see more included in the long run the amount you currently have shows that some effort has been put into this article to source this information. None the less, I do have some suggestions for improvement:
  • The article has a lot small sections that sometimes seem to have no immediate conclusion. Admitedly there are links to larger articles, but a breif summary should include the important details of the event, and I presume that since this one deals with people displacement (from the war in general and sides in particular) there is probably something to say about what happened to them after the displacement.
  • There is no explination of what the armistice treaty was.
  • The estimated forces in Romania table looks rather out of place in its current form; is there is a way to line the text around the table like an image, or maybe create a pictorial graph to represent the information? (This is merely a question; If these two options are not viable, then I will not hold this against the article and will reassess my stance on the article taking that fact into account).
  • I see no citations for the 25th hour in the pop culture section; could you provide one or two?
  • Some of the links in the see also section are already linked in the article body. If that be the case then the links already covered in the article should be removed from the see also section.
  • Would it be possible to add additional pictures to the article? I see only two images, and those are very near the top.
  • Why isn't the line Soviet Occupation of Romania bolded in the first sentence? Ordinarily people do the bolding right off the bat rather than wait to last paragraph to introduce the bold text. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Military history of Gibraltar during World War II

This article previously failed an A-class review (see here) owing to lack of broadness in subject and some need of copyediting. This should all have been dealt with now, at least that's what I would say! -- Chris B • talk 16:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment — I think the biggest remaining problem is defining a few of the terms that pop up. North Front, 'The Rock', and a few other slang terms need to have definitions attached with their first use so we know what's being talked about. I can understand them through context, but readers who know nothing about Gibraltar may not be able to understand them. JKBrooks85 18:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I've added a note to "North Front", and if I'm not mistaken "the Rock" is defined somewhere in the lede. Can you spot any others? You see, it's fairly hard for me to identify colloquialisms because I am used to hearing them! Nevertheless, I must bear in mind that someone who doesn't would have no idea where on earth "North Front" is. -- Chris B • talk 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Personally, I found the article a bit disjointed and somewhat hard to follow. I think it'd be best, if possible, if the main headings could reflect the main phases of the war experience of Gibraltar. Oberiko 12:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it any better now? Or have I made it worse?! I've rearranged some sections to complete the chronology and renamed various headings. -- Chris B • talk 16:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way you could move the Italian frogman section to just after the German invasion plans? I think you'd have to reduce the size of the the table of attacks in order to prevent it from overwhelming the page, otherwise I'd have done the move myself. Any ideas on how you could rework it so that it wouldn't take up so much space? If so, I'd recommend putting that section right after the German attacks, thus having the article end with the return of the refugees to Gibraltar. JKBrooks85 16:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • Fist off I will say that the whole article seems very poorly written, it is almost like a random assortment of information was called togather to form something a little more deatailed than a list and brought up to higher standards by the addition of citations without any real sense of what it should be. I have seen several sentence stubs across the section that need more information to be sentences in their own right or removed to allow the real sentences a chance to grow. Much of the article also seems to assume that we the readers are familar with the location and its general history (which I am not), and has no real sense of orginization or hierachy; the section header system in place is very abstract and (IMO) provides no insight for the readers on what info can be found there. Many areas look like they would do better combined with or spun off into other articles here. Put simply, your article here has a lot of content, but very little context.
  • The image of the two guys under the section "prelude" ID both men but doesn't saw which one is which; if you could work that into the caption, that would be awesome.
  • The section on the RAF invovement jumps straight to them being on Gibralter, without going into what lead them to be on gibralter in the first place; not that we need a new subsection or anything, but a few words about why the RAF deemed Gibralter important would be nice.
  • The first line in the section "Operation Felix" mentions "the war", but doesn't specify which war; could you be more specific?
  • The first section under the heading german plans has a capitalized "Operation", but no code name; if you don't have a codename then this should be turned to lower case.
  • The section on Operation Tracer seems to be out of place, like it would do better as its own article with just a few lines here; additionallly, the section was very confusing to me, I had a hard time following it and making sense of it.
  • Your notes and citation sections could prabably be combined, they seem to be doing the same job.
  • Combine like citations in the citation section. Case in point: #10, #11, and #12 are cited to the same source. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Battle of Dak To

Have made major modifications to this B-Class article. Hope it meets the criteria. RM Gillespie 15:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• The article is very complete and does a great job of covering the battle, but because it's so complete, the sections seem a bit long. I'd suggest adding subheads in each of the major sections to help break it down and make it a bit more accessible to the casual reader.
• The conclusion does a great job of building up to the siege of Khe Sanh, but according to the Vietnam War infobox, Dak To and Khe Sanh are separated by the Tet Offensive. Maybe you could have the article lead into Tet rather than the siege? This isn't my area of expertise, but the way the article is written implies that Dak To was leading up to a major offensive, of which Tet certainly was.

— JKBrooks85 17:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I find a few issues with the article:
  • The North Vietnamese (NVA) are referred to at least once in the article as the "enemy". Even though there may not be much info on the North Vietnamese side of the events in this article, we have to make sure to keep a NPOV tone in the entry as much as possible.
  • The "belt-grabbing" technique used by the NVA isn't explained. What is it?
  • There should be at least one citation in every paragraph.

Cla68 20:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Sino-Indian War

Previous review

I nominate this article for traing and hope to have gathered enough knowledgeable reviewers this time. Wandalstouring 10:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I think it easily meets the requirements and could even be promoted to FA in the near future. --Eurocopter tigre 12:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support — Very thorough, complete, and well-cited article on the subject. My only nitpick is that the phrase "Asian giants" in the infobox photo caption isn't very encyclopedic. JKBrooks85
• Support with reservations Whilst i agree that there are many citations in this article, most of them are not cited correctly or indeed consisently. Recent experience at FA shows me that all citations need a Retrieved date. Many of the notes link to external websites simply with a numbered link. e.g Refs 71, 72, 73, 74. As an example, ref#75 is not very explanatory. I am not saying that they need to use Wikipedia:Citation templates, simply that the link explains who and where it is from. Personally, i like the citation templates as they provide all the information that you need to know. Also several of the notes seem to be empty e.g. refs 30, 48, 51.

This article relies heavily on a few sources. In places it is overcited. Getting the ref name upto cu is some sort of record. In some paragraphs every sentence is referenced, but with the same reference. The convention at FA seems to be to have duplicated references at the end of the paragraph or statement. Whilst i understand that controversial statements in paragraphs should be cited, i think this article takes it a bit far. With the references as they are, it would not pass FA, but i do think it is worthy of A-Class.

It is also very long, 101kb to be precise. (It is #583 on the long article list). It could be broken down a bit more or WP:SUMMARY style could be more rigidly enforced. Saying that, i can't see many areas where the text can be broken down. Again, a possible problem at FA. Woodym555 14:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I see to many problems with the article:
  • The article seems a little long, is there any way to reduce the size without compromising the material?
  • In the second paragraph of the section "The Johson line" is the sentence "China rejected the arrangement, and the British government also harboured doubts, so decided to take up the issue in an attempt to reach a settlement."; however you don;t say who decided to take up the issue.
  • Remember that unless you are using a quote in its entirety you should use three dotes to denote where the quote coems from in relation to the other written material; "...(quote)." or "(quote)...". Case in point: "except through the intermediary of the Chinese government" in the section "The McMohan Line" (the "excpet" leads me to believe its part of a larger quote)
  • Check for consistancey with citation, I see some after periods and commas and some before periods and commas.
  • Toward the end of the Tibet OCntrovery section you the line "Other authors including Roderik McFarquhar also state that the most immediate threat to China was from Taiwan and as such.", but the line has no source and seems out of place. I would suggest removing it or sourceing it and expanding on it.
  • Try not to use the word however, other words like but, and, or, etc work equally as well.
  • There is no citation for the quote in the Ceasefire section
  • Check to make sure no sentences start with numerical quantites (like 1, 2, 3, etc); these numbers hbould be spelled out.
  • There is some inconsistancy in date formatting; make sure the daes are one style and linked whenever possible.
  • There is, as noted above, inconsistancy in the notes section with regard to formatting; this should be fixed. SandyGeorgia may be willing to help if you ask her nicely. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Horses in warfare

It developed quite well from an unreadable rubbish. Although this was not my merit, I want to push it further to A class. Wandalstouring 11:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment — Broken photo at the end; Slovenian horses. JKBrooks85 15:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment

• The WP:LEAD should be an adequate summary of the article. I think the lead should be expanded.
• References for the second paragraph of Light weight-horses. e.g. Palfrey needs a reference.
• References for the statistics of the Middle weight horses. I know they that the sentence is quite subjective, but it still needs a reference.
• References in general. There are several citation needed tags. It is better to be over-referenced than have a lack of references.
• WP:DASH need, – or – in between dates.
• In the 20th Century section, in firefox, the image on the left overlaps the title. (Internet explorer is ok as is yahoo browser). The WP:MOS#Images recommends that images should be staggered. As it is it compresses the text. Think about removing 1 or two to stop the page being compressed.

Apart from that, the wikilinks are relevant, the prose is good and the text is comprehensive. Well done so far. Woodym555 13:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - In my opinion this article is quite much unreferenced. There are entire subsections such as "Warfare in the Renaissance and Early Modern Period" and "Reconnaissance and patrol" which are completely unreferenced. Also, in "Equestrian competition" subsection, three of the four main paragraphs are lacking citations. I think it won't meet even the GA requirements. --Eurocopter tigre 12:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The GA citation requirement have just been releaxed after a long discussion on WP:WIAGA. Even so, as per Wikipedia:Citing sources guidelines whole paragraphs do not have to be cited as long as there is nothing deemed to be contentious. Whilst i agree with you that it needs more citations in places, i don't think that every paragraph always has to have a citation. Woodym555 12:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Military history of Gibraltar during World War II

Currently a well-cited GA, aiming for Featured Article status in the near future, yet I feel it would benefit with an A-class review first. Cheers, Chris.B 15:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment — I like the structure of the article, but feel that it really needs to be copyedited and have the lede rewritten before approval. In particular, I'd suggest including a bit on what happened to Gibraltar once the war passed it by. I'll do a bit of copyediting when I've got time. JKBrooks85 16:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent, thanks for your suggestions. The lead section has posed more problems than anything else so far, although your latest copyedit seems to have really made a difference, so thank you for that. I will try to take up on some further copyediting. -- Chris.B 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, I took care of the lede, but I'd suggest looking through the rest of the article. I think the flow from section to section needs to be improved, and I'd suggest eliminating a few of the redundant footnotes if possible — you've got a lot of [20] footnotes right in a row. JKBrooks85 21:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JKBrooks85. It's almost there, but I have a few observations: The wording in some places is sort of jerky, the flow is not quite A-class. Oftentimes small edits to individual sentences create this effect; where a paragraph originally was written by one editor and flowed together nicely you find well-written sentences that don't quite fit with the rest of the paragraph for whatever reason. The article does not mention specifically that Gibraltar is the only passage in and out of the Mediterranean besides the Suez Canal, so the strategic importance is downplayed somewhat. The article on Gibraltar itself mentions this, however, so perhaps that is unnecessary. Also, were there any notable air raids or attacks on the Rock that deserve a specific mention (besides planned attacks that didn't pan out)? The picture of the Italian air-raid is out of place in the section it's in, and would fit better in a place where the attacks (if any) were described. I love the picture at the top, though... it's totally badass...And the article is incredibly well-cited, I daresay overly cited(?). I can try to help with some edits, but I've been known to step on people's toes sometimes. I'd say we're 50 good edits or so away from A-class status in my book. Oh and one other thing...there's too very relevant and good quotations in the article (by Hitler and Clifford) but they use two different templates. Is that because one was a direcr quotation and one was the text of a directive? or could they both be treated as quotes? Antimatter--talk-- 22:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Great feedback guys. I'm going to [slightly] cut down on the redundant footnotes and take up on your other suggestions. As far as I am concerned there weren't any major air-raids, or anything specifically worth mentioning; so the Italian magazine cover is largely propaganda. It is a bit out of place, but I don't know where to put it - I will see if I can find somewhere more appropriate. Hitler's quote is a direct excerpt from the directive whereas the other is a simple quotation. And I known that there is a much better image for the top of the article illustrating the entire Rock and searchlights, I will see if I can get my hands on it. -- Chris.B 10:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• I've swapped the top image with another and I've changed the introductory sentence; let me know what you think. -- Chris.B 10:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. I believe the article should be organized differently. I would suggest a more chronological lay-out, beginning with a "Background" that gives a brief history of Gibraltar and its preparations for WWII, then goes into the different events in chronological order such as the evacuations of civilians and attacks on the rock. An "aftermath" section should explain Gibraltar's role as a rear-area port and supply base for the remainder of the war and what role it had, if any, with immediate post-war events such as the repatriation of POWs, rebuilding efforts, etc. The intro mentions attacks on the base by Vichy French and Italian frogmen, but I didn't see any mention of these attacks in the main body of the article. The article has good information but doesn't seem complete yet. Cla68 21:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I totally agree w/ Cla68 re Vichy attacks. For the layout i believe that would need some simple reshuffle. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, everything seems to be in chronological order now. The thing is that Gibraltar was scarcely attacked in WWII, there were only the odd frogmen attacks and air raids which failed half the time. There weren't any major damages in Gib (I daresay any noteworthy damages). Gibraltar revolved around the evacuation, the military garrison and Operation Torch, hence the more exhaustive account of this in the article as you can tell. I will try to find a source about the air raids nonetheless. -- Chris.B 16:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Good edits...I like the new picture and chronological layout. This article would still benefit from some minor copyediting...I'm not quite ready to give my full support yet, but we're close to the criteriaAntimatter--talk-- 23:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Byzantine-Ottoman wars

I believe it is well sourced, well-written, with no edit warring. It is an article describing one of the most decisive events in history and its content is broad enough, in my opinion, to begin upgrading its status. I believe that it has the potential, perhaps with a few more edits, of becoming an FA. Tourskin 19:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose writing style is unencyclopedic and there are grammatical errors. Wandalstouring 14:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Wandalstouring. There are several grammatical errors in the article and it does not flow like an encyclopedia article should. I quote:

After these defeats, Andronicus was in no position to send many troops. In 1320, Andronicus II's grandson, Andronicus III was disinherited following the death of Andronicus II's son.[22] In 1321, Andronicus III retaliated by marching on Constantinople; he was given Thrace as an appanage. However, Andronicus III continued to press for his inheritance and in 1322 was made co-emperor. This culminated into a small scale Balkan war in which Serbia backed Andronicus II and the Bulgarians backed his grandson, Andronicus III. Eventually Andronicus III emerged triumphant on May 23 1328. As Andronicus III consolidated his hold on Byzantium, the Ottomans succeeded in taking Brusa from the Byzantines in 1326.[23] thus beginning what would turn out to be a series of successful sieges The last sentence isn't a sentence, punctuation needs sorted. The dates need to be formatted using the guidelines at WP:DATE particularly under Autoformatting and linking. This paragraph seems like a list at the moment and it is just an example. I think it needs a thorough copyedit before it becomes an A-Class article. Woodym555 22:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose A little more should get it there. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 00:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Battle of Panipat (1761)

I have started working on this article recently, but it needs a good look at, to get it up to scratch. Any input would be appreciated! --Zak 20:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Question I think you might want to try a Peer review first. From what you have said, i think you want some editorial input on how best to improve the article. This is best achieved through a Peer Review. A-Class review is a formal assessment procedure against the A-Class criteria. I can put it up for peer review if you want or give you instructions on how to do it. Any questions, do ask on the main project talk page or on my own talk page Woodym555 20:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A few pointers: There do seem to be large areas of text without wikilinks. This is not a good or a bad thing, although i do think any notable thing should be wikilinked to provide context to the article. Use Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) as a reference. Most of the middle sections have no references or inline citations at all. Also, the number of soldiers involved and the associated casualties need referenced. I note that there has been some debate on the talk page with regards to these; a verifiable reference would help clear this up and and would remove the citation needed tag in the lead.Woodym555 21:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A few things to consider: the lead is very short and should be expanded to fully summarize the article (see here for more details), and there is a great deal of uncited information. Also, the long block quotes at the beginning of each section seem to break up the flow of the page (in terms of both appearance and coherence). Carom 21:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I have written a lead for the article now. When i did so i added some example edits in. The summary of the problems is listed below.

• The battle section needs to be cleared up completely. It is currently fragmented and not very clear. It is quite hard to follow and there are several small paragraphs that could be merged.
• I think NPOV is still a minor issue. I think the section header Rout and Massacre is indicative of the problem, i think it should be renamed to Aftermath. I removed some weasel words but there may still be some in the article.

Minor problems with WP:MOS

• I have written a lead, it may need updating though, some information may be incorrect.
• Needs correct citation templates, have done some example ones. See WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Citation templates for more details.
• It needs some "En dashes" as per WP:DASH
• Other general clearup from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers); times need to be in 24hour clock, i.e 14:00, not 2pm. The dates should be 7 October 1760 or and not the "7th of October 1760" as per WP:DATE.

I think it needs a thorough copyedit and refinement before becoming and A-Class Article. Woodym555 14:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Romanian Land Forces

Significant changes had been made since the last A-class review. Mission, Beginnings and Post-communist era sections had been added (these sections were missing at the time of the first review). I would like to see if there is anything else to be done for this article to become an A-class article. Best regards, --Eurocopter tigre 09:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have to remain skeptical about this one. There remains very little information about the RLF during the Cold War: its war plans, level of Sov control, order of battle, etc. There is no detailed discussion of the way the RLF structure evolved in 89 onwards also. There is good material available within the Library of Congress country study on this, but it is not included. Cold War International History Project [1] and [2] also has useful info. Eurocopter, if you still can't find any Cold War OOB info after having another look, contact me; I've got some stuff, and user:W. B. Wilson has a book by Keegan which will give another good mid-Cold War picture. Buckshot06 18:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment — I, too, would like to see this article expanded before approval. You've got a great start, well-defined sections and superb organization, graphics, and pictures, but in terms of basic content, it's really lacking. The pre-WWI section in particular, needs quite a bit of work, I feel. A few short paragraphs for seventy years of history doesn't do the subject justice. Buckshot addressed the same issue with other sections as well. JKBrooks85 20:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

---

Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Ironclad warship

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

Ironclad warship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Ironclad warship

• Featured article review/Ironclad warship/archive1

Nominating this for A-class reassessment because of concerns still not addressed from Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ironclad warship/archive1. Way too much uncited text. Schierbecker (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose byDelist - Gog the Mild

• You are correct, way too much uncited text, so didn't need to look any further before opposing. I think this needs to be at PR, preferably after the uncited text has been either cited or removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: - just wanting to make sure you are aware this is one in a series of delisting nominations, not an actual a-class nomination to oppose. Hog Farm _Talk 22:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Ha, no, thanks; I missed the "reassessment". I shall have a more detailed look, but it is still up for delisting unless someone has access to sourcing. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I have read through it properly and could add quite a bit, but I see no need to - it is clearly a long way from A class. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Delist - Pickersgill-Cunliffe

MilHistBot went through and re-assessed this as c-class last week and I am in agreement with the venerable bot. Per Gog, one need go no further than the twenty-eight(!) citation needed tags. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Delist - HF

Besides the uncited text, a statement that I flagged as dubious during the 2022 FAR is still present. This needs major work. Hog Farm _Talk 14:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Delist --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2024 (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.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Romanian Land Forces

Significant changes had been made since the last A-class review. Mission, Beginnings and Post-communist era sections had been added (these sections were missing at the time of the first review). I would like to see if there is anything else to be done for this article to become an A-class article. Best regards, --Eurocopter tigre 09:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have to remain skeptical about this one. There remains very little information about the RLF during the Cold War: its war plans, level of Sov control, order of battle, etc. There is no detailed discussion of the way the RLF structure evolved in 89 onwards also. There is good material available within the Library of Congress country study on this, but it is not included. Cold War International History Project [3] and [4] also has useful info. Eurocopter, if you still can't find any Cold War OOB info after having another look, contact me; I've got some stuff, and user:W. B. Wilson has a book by Keegan which will give another good mid-Cold War picture. Buckshot06 18:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment — I, too, would like to see this article expanded before approval. You've got a great start, well-defined sections and superb organization, graphics, and pictures, but in terms of basic content, it's really lacking. The pre-WWI section in particular, needs quite a bit of work, I feel. A few short paragraphs for seventy years of history doesn't do the subject justice. Buckshot addressed the same issue with other sections as well. JKBrooks85 20:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Cannon

The main article for the cannon article series, presently of GA status. It was initially deemed not thoroughly cited enough in its prior nomination here, and although the problems were fixed, the review expired. It should be sufficiently improved now. --Grimhelm 19:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Comment. Is the development of rifling part of the history of cannons? Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see this discussed in the article. Cla68 21:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I added it to the See also section, as I think it is more within the scope of Cannon operation or perhaps History of cannon than the main article. --Grimhelm 22:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I think more of the technological development of cannon, such as the introduction of rifling, should be in the body. Cla68 23:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support, as I did before, although I still believe that the "see also" section should be abandoned, and the relevant links incorporated into the body of the article. Carom 22:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The article is sufficent but I agree with Carom that the See Also section should be removed. Kyriakos 23:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. There are many things I did like. Please forgive me on concentrationg on things I did not like, and feel free to disagree. As I see it, every subsection in the "history" section of the article should give a (relatively short) explanation of important technical developments and of a role - with an emphasis on changes in a role - of cannon in the specific era and/or region, while the separate "History of cannon" article provides - or will eventually provide - more detils. Some subsections, however, are far from being good overviews - sometimes a bit too detailed, often missing key points, sometimes too "chaotic". I like the "early" and "medieval europe" (although, the article lets the reader to conclude that cannons played a significant role at Crecy, which is questionable at least). However, the "post-medieval" and the "18-19 century" IMHO concentrate too heavily on siege warfare and on naval artillery respectively. Both seem to ignore field artillery, which started to play a major role in post-medieval campaigns and by 19th century developed into a key factor on battlefield. As already mentioned by Cla68, the "18-19"" ignores important techical developments such as rifling, breech loading (and possibly recoil systems, also one can say that it should belong to the "modern" section). As for the "modern"... may be I am wrong, but I think it needs a major rewriting. Again, key technical developments (recoil systems if not mentioned earlier, possibly split trail carriage, possibly mortars, certainly SP artillery etc, possibly introduction of lots of new ammunition types) and change in battlefield roles (such as anti-tank and anti-aircraft warfare) are missing or almost missing. Moreover, the section simply looks confusing to me, as it seems to run back and forth between different periods, types of weapons etc without following any order. Since there were so many relevant developments in the modern era, perhaps that subsection should be split ? Again, may be I'm wrong or just too pedantic. I do understand that the task is quite ambitious and that a lot of effort had been put in the article. And I did like many parts of the article. And, being an inexperienced reviewer, I don't claim that the article is not good enough for A class. However, as a pedant with some interest in artillery, I have to say that IMHO it still needs a lot of work before I will be able to say to somebody who asks me what cannon is - go read the wikipedia article. Bukvoed 07:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I have removed the see also section, and added a few paragraphs on field artillery. As for Crécy, medieval cannon had more of a psychological impact (which would be useful against an army three times your size), and it was a new experience for infantry unused to gunpowder warfare. --Grimhelm 09:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Battle of the Plains of Abraham

Previous nomination here.

As this article has been relatively stable for quite some time now, I'd like to bring it forward for another review towards A-Class and, eventually Featured status. The previous review brought forward some concerns regarding balance, quality of sourcing and wording; I found a number of good new resources to flesh things out, replaced some of the questioned sources, reworded, and added some more information where I could. I think the results have turned out fairly well, and would like to hear the views of project members once again. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Nice work. I hope though, that you'll continue looking for or draw your own map of the battle that could be added to the article. Cla68 05:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I do need to try and track a PD map down; I'll poke around and see what I can find. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• And why I didn't check the Commons before now, I'll never know. Article now includes a map - it's a somewhat general view of the area, but at least helps illustrate the discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support, with a few minor changes. I made a little typo correction already, as that was something I could easily correct. I would like a little more clarification however on the following point, the lead states that the battle involved fewer than 10,000 troops. However, down under "First engagements", it's stated that Montcalm had 13,390 troops and militia available while the British had 3,300. Later in the section though it goes on to say that Montcalm attacked with only 3,500 troops. So, it appears that 6,800 troops participated in the first engagement. The number of artillery and naval personnel involved are unstated, whether they wer included in the numbers or in addition to them. I don't know if that information is available or not, without drawing conclusions, so I'll leave that to you, but a little clarification on the numbers involved might be good, if it's available. wbfergus 13:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Quite right, and thank you for spotting that. I added to one sentence to clarify that the French troops involved in the main battle were those in or close by the city, and that Montcalm felt he couldn't wait to bring the others in from further east. I hope that clears it up a little! Tony Fox (arf!) 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support Wandalstouring 07:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The article has definately improved and deserves A-class. Kyriakos 08:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Sino-Indian War

Previous review

I nominate this article for traing and hope to have gathered enough knowledgeable reviewers this time. Wandalstouring 10:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I think it easily meets the requirements and could even be promoted to FA in the near future. --Eurocopter tigre 12:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support — Very thorough, complete, and well-cited article on the subject. My only nitpick is that the phrase "Asian giants" in the infobox photo caption isn't very encyclopedic. JKBrooks85
• Support with reservations Whilst i agree that there are many citations in this article, most of them are not cited correctly or indeed consisently. Recent experience at FA shows me that all citations need a Retrieved date. Many of the notes link to external websites simply with a numbered link. e.g Refs 71, 72, 73, 74. As an example, ref#75 is not very explanatory. I am not saying that they need to use Wikipedia:Citation templates, simply that the link explains who and where it is from. Personally, i like the citation templates as they provide all the information that you need to know. Also several of the notes seem to be empty e.g. refs 30, 48, 51.

This article relies heavily on a few sources. In places it is overcited. Getting the ref name upto cu is some sort of record. In some paragraphs every sentence is referenced, but with the same reference. The convention at FA seems to be to have duplicated references at the end of the paragraph or statement. Whilst i understand that controversial statements in paragraphs should be cited, i think this article takes it a bit far. With the references as they are, it would not pass FA, but i do think it is worthy of A-Class.

It is also very long, 101kb to be precise. (It is #583 on the long article list). It could be broken down a bit more or WP:SUMMARY style could be more rigidly enforced. Saying that, i can't see many areas where the text can be broken down. Again, a possible problem at FA. Woodym555 14:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I see to many problems with the article:
  • The article seems a little long, is there any way to reduce the size without compromising the material?
  • In the second paragraph of the section "The Johson line" is the sentence "China rejected the arrangement, and the British government also harboured doubts, so decided to take up the issue in an attempt to reach a settlement."; however you don;t say who decided to take up the issue.
  • Remember that unless you are using a quote in its entirety you should use three dotes to denote where the quote coems from in relation to the other written material; "...(quote)." or "(quote)...". Case in point: "except through the intermediary of the Chinese government" in the section "The McMohan Line" (the "excpet" leads me to believe its part of a larger quote)
  • Check for consistancey with citation, I see some after periods and commas and some before periods and commas.
  • Toward the end of the Tibet OCntrovery section you the line "Other authors including Roderik McFarquhar also state that the most immediate threat to China was from Taiwan and as such.", but the line has no source and seems out of place. I would suggest removing it or sourceing it and expanding on it.
  • Try not to use the word however, other words like but, and, or, etc work equally as well.
  • There is no citation for the quote in the Ceasefire section
  • Check to make sure no sentences start with numerical quantites (like 1, 2, 3, etc); these numbers hbould be spelled out.
  • There is some inconsistancy in date formatting; make sure the daes are one style and linked whenever possible.
  • There is, as noted above, inconsistancy in the notes section with regard to formatting; this should be fixed. SandyGeorgia may be willing to help if you ask her nicely. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

First Command Financial Planning, Inc.

A recently written article, am curious as to what changes/improvements might be needed.Balloonman 15:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment nice article, but I don't want to judge it. It's too alien. Wandalstouring 21:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support a nice article indeed. Carom 22:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I can't understand the second sentence of the second paragraph in the "History" section. There are a lot of words and phrases throughout the article that are capitalized but don't need to be, such as "Enlisted Personnel," "Board of Advisors," and and the cardinal cornerstones. The quote in the "systematic plans" section isn't formatted correctly as a quote and the last sentence in the section isn't cited. The abbreviation "NASD" is used without being spelled-out until later in the article. I don't think long quotes are supposed to be italicized. I think, perhaps, the article might not be quite ready for A-class review yet, but it's almost there. Cla68 00:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

thank you for some excellent feedback... I'll look at it this weekend/evening and see if I can fix your concerns.Balloonman 14:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Battle of Arras (1917)

Renomination. This article was recently added as a Good Article, and I believe that all the concerns raised in the previous A-Class review and the peer review have been resolved by myself or Roger Davies. All comments and concerns welcomed. Carom 18:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support'. Well written article. Kyriakos 23:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support - a comprehensive and interesting article. My only suggestion is that that the 'Creeping barrage' section needs a citation. --Nick Dowling 10:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support - here's some improvement suggestions from the automated peer review script..

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 yards, use 000 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000&nbsp;yards.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Medains 11:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support, although I have a few suggestions. I suggest a few more sentences in the background explaining how the Allied and German armies ended-up facing each other in 1917. I'm somewhat familiar with WWI but I don't know exactly the chain events leading to where those two adversaries found themselves in 1917. Also, there's a lot of one-paragraph sections, although in this case that might be ok since each section is usually on a completely different topic than the preceeding and following sections, but I still think some sections could be combined. Otherwise, I think it meets the criteria. Nice work. CLA 01:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Leaning towards opposing

• Under the Commanders section it says Falkenhausen was removed from the Third Army. Surely you mean Sixth Army.

There are an awful lot of small sections. Can the Commanders section be merged with the Aftermath?

• In the Political Background an entire paragraph consist of the line: “In Germany, the storm clouds were gathering too.” This is not very informative.

Additionally, the US declared war in 1917, not 1916!

• Three sections are completely unsourced.

What’s the source for the strengths?

• Needs a thorough check for typos and errors. Eg: citations come after punctuation and without spaces:

Additionally, German records excluded those "lightly wounded".[27] Captain Cyril Falls (the British official battle historian) estimated that 30% needed to be added to German returns for comparison with the British". [27] Falls makes "a general estimate" that German casualties were "probably fairly equal". [27] Nicholls puts them at 120,000.[26]; and Keegan at 130,000[28].

Others errors throughout. Raymond Palmer 10:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Various things went wrong whilst I was editing it this morning. I've fixed (most of) what you mention. Commanders was meant to be part of aftermath and now is. 1916 was a typo. Roger 14:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through and done some ref cleanup; it appears your specific objections have been addressed. Carom 17:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Please check the change I made in the Second Battle of Bullecourt section, and the Battle of Arleux section. I reworded the original sentences that didn’t seem clear (to me at least), and I hoped I haven't changed the history.

In the Commanders section it quotes a Times article on ‘Falkenhausen's reign of terror’. It was common practice for opposing media to vilify the opposition with tales of atrocity, was it not? Is this story verifiable from another source other than the British press?

Nicely done overall IMO. Raymond Palmer 21:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Eiríkr Hákonarson

I make no comment on the content of the article. I came across it while assessing articles and it had A-class status from other WP projects so I wanted to put it through our process to see if it held up.--Looper5920 10:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The sections on the Battle of Svolder and the Battle of Hjörungavágr are completely uncited, but other than that, it seems like a worthy candidate. If those sections were cited, I would change to support. Carom 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Carom re: the two battle sections. Also the prose could use some minor tweaking and I'll be happy to help with that. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• SupportThere is definitely enough content, and it seems to be well formatted. I support, because the preceding criteria mean alot to me. --- ÅñôñÿMôús ^{Dîššíd3nt} 23:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with the comments above, the two battle section need cits and I would like to see a bigger lead if possible. Kyriakos 00:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Egyptian Invasion of Mani

This article recently passed as a GA and I would like to see if it can become A-class. If you do oppose the article's nomination could you please write why. Thanks. Kyriakos 05:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support A little editing to clean up some clunky phrasing wouldn't hurt, though. Carom 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Minor oppose This may be seen as a purely opinion based opposition but the tone of the article seems too dramatic in its portrayal of greek heroism and the value of the battle. Reading the article I didn't feal it as objective as it should be. As well work should be done on further explaining in article the 22 000 men involved in the battle indicated in the infobox. Are the 7 000 men from the initial invasion really different from the 6 000 used in august? Only 2 000 maniots and 500 refugies are mentioned in the article yet 7 500 greek fighters are counted in the infobox. A few points that I find need to be polished.--Dryzen 20:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have fixed the info box. Kyriakos 21:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

World War II

I nominated this article for A-Class because of its great in-depth explanation and good refrencing. --Pupster21 19:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. This article has the making of a FA bit for the moment I can not support it. Some secions do not have citations which I think is a must for passing the article. I am a little concerned about the lack of a lead but I think the overview section makes up for it. Kyriakos 09:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I kinda agree, the overview needs refrences... Well, they are had, but they need to be footnoted and linked, It is there but not shown. If I knew how to footnote, I would do it my self. --Pupster21 12:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose It's a good article overall, but there are entire sections without any citations at all. A copyedit wouldn't hurt, either. Carom 19:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

---

No longer meets A-Class criteria at this time Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

American Civil War

Nominator(s): Anotherclown (talk)

Current A-class assessment: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/American Civil War/Archive2.

This article was awarded A-class by a WP:MILHIST review on 28 March 2007 (see above). It went through a few GARs and was kept, but was later delisted as a GA on 28 July 2012 (see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/American_Civil_War/2). Despite this it looks like it kept its A class rating by default. The article would seem to fail our A class criteria on referencing alone as there are quite a few paragraphs without citations. As such I request this be reassessed / demoted. Anotherclown (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Demote as it stands on, as AC indicates, referencing alone. Formatting-wise, there's also lots of Harv errors to be tidied up. I'd love to see someone rescue the article before next year's sesquicentennial of the end of the war but it doesn't do WP any good to claim it as a MilHist A-Class article in its current state. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Demote on A1, there are sections with no citations at all. Which is a shame given the importance of the topic. Agree that the number of Harv errors is very ugly, and the See also section is not MOS-compliant. I haven't checked the images, but doesn't even look B-Class in its current state. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Demote: per nom and others, this doesn't meet the A-class criteria at the moment. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Demote: I did some copyediting, but it really didn't make a dent. - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 30 May 2014 (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.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Anthony Eden

Former British Prime Minister. Long, thorough, well-written article. Has earned an A-class from WP:Biography, thought I should nom it to have the assessments match. LordAmeth 16:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose No citations in the first 2/3 of the article is a little problematic, particularly in the case of assertions such as "the marriage was not a success, and broke up under the strain of Eden's political career." Beyond that, it needs a copyedit - a lot of the phrasing is a tad clunky. Also, the lead is a little on the short side, but that's a minor quibble, really. Carom 17:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as above Wandalstouring 20:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Japanese castle

I've placed this article through peer review, took action based on the comments & suggestions received, and am ready to nominate this for A-class. There aren't yet have any A, GA, or FA class articles which are primarily my work, as far as I'm aware off hand, and as this is a very broad and important (and likely fairly popular) topic, I should like it to be able to stand out as an example of some of my best work. Thank you. LordAmeth 09:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Support:

• 1a. Well written - Yes. Though I trimmed a sentence which was self-referential and unessential.
• 1b. Comprehensive - Yes. I took to add a map of the layout of Utsunomiya Castle to also show a plan/layout, which had been lacking. I also suggest writing about the multi-tiered roof designs common to traditional Japanese architecture.
• 1c. Factually accurate - Yes, conditional. I noted that many of the footnotes are not to external references, but to further uncited statements. Try to add more external references and avoid using references for making additional unsupported statements. Elsewise, the "cite" police will come after you.
• 1d. Neutral - Yes.
• 1e. Stable - Yes. Other than my dinkings around today. :)
• 2a. Lead section - Yes.
• 2b. Hierarchical headings - Yes.
• 2c. Table of contents - Yes.
• 3. Images - Yes, though I added two to support a plan/layout map, as well as one to show Kokura Castle against the foreground of its garden to support the adjacent text regarding gardens.
• 4. Length - Yes. Only 39k.

--Petercorless 22:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, and for your continued help in improving this article. Regarding your point "1c" though, on citations, I wonder what the alternative should be. Much of this is just basic explanatory stuff which can be easily cross-referenced on the appropriate Wikipedia pages (e.g. samurai, Mongol invasions of Japan). I'd be happy to seek out citations for these things too, but I do think that they are better placed in the footnotes than cluttering up the main portion of the article, no? Some of this was added during the Peer Review process, as at least one editor said the article wasn't clear enough on specialized terms like "samurai". LordAmeth 18:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I know you're not a big fan of citations, but there are some really, really bare patches in this one, particularly towards the end. It's quite good otherwise, but I don't think the citations are up to the level of recent A-class promotions. Carom 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If you point out exactly which statements you think need citing, I'll be happy to look for sources. LordAmeth 09:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added about a half-dozen fact tags, let me know if you think any of them are unreasonable. Also, in some places, it's difficult to tell whether or not the citations are intended to refer to an entire paragraph, or just a sentence; this could be clarified in the notes themselves. I do like the notes you have, however - very scholarly, very useful, I just wish there were more. Carom 18:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Operation Igloo White

Previous nomination

Finally finished this article. Hope past criticisms have been addressed. RM Gillespie 21:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

weak oppose. I think it is almost there but not yet.

1) The introduction is lenghty and should preferably be focussed.

2) Some of the supporting pictures are really low quality book or newspaper scans (including the lead figure).

3) Some sections, including the conclusions are riddled with jargon and abbreviations. Although some helpful between bracket explanations have been given; and many were explained. adding so many highly cryptical abbreviations, even if explained asks a lot of the readers and should be sparingly if at all be used - consider this sentence from the conclusion: The stated goal of the American aerial interdiction campaigns was to force the DRV to pay too high a price in blood to make the continued support of its goals in the RVN tenable.[50] In this effort, the U.S. failed. Not only were the PAVN/NLF.

4) Notes (including inline references) and References are largely overlapping sections and should be merged.

IMHO none of these is in itself a major problem, but taken togehter I see some room for improvement before A-class. Arnoutf 23:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the intro should briefly summarize the entire article. Am I wrong in this assumption? As to the illustrations, there are very few sources in the public domain that pertain to this topic. RM Gillespie 02:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

For reference, from WP:LEAD:

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article. Small details that appear in the full article should be avoided in favor of a very brief overview of the article.

Kirill Lokshin 03:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note my carefull wording; I do not say it is definitely too lengthy; only that a slightly shorter intro may help readers. The second line, for example may also read: The operation used state-of-the art technology in an effort to automate intelligence collection. But take that remark more as an advice than as a definite do. Arnoutf 10:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the pictures; of course I understand there is limited material available, however the scans used are of low quality; and should preferably be replace with better (i.e. a better version of the same picture). E.g. the lead picture shows something of a rainbow colour scattering that maybe removed with some 'polishing' of the picture; or other scan-options. The picture is also slightly skewed; which is easily corrected, and some remaining caption is visible, which should be removed by cropping the scanned image. These issues go for some of the other images as well. Arnoutf 14:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

1st Infantry Division (United States)

I nominated this article for A-class because it has historical importance and good content.--Pupster21 17:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - While it has the makings of a good article it also has some serious flaws at the moment and may have been nominated a bit prematurely. I would say it still needs:

• Expansion of introduction. An explanation of the motto should not account for half of it.
• Overall format is all over the place. The list of commanders are unnecessary. Important commanders should be mentioned in the prose itself. Various lists that break up the article (Interwar years OOB & Assignments in the European Theater of Operations) are best turned onto prose or removed.
• Lacking any inline citations
• De-Army the text...For example I'll say 99.9% of readers do not know what a TO&E,IFOR2 / SFOR1 are...also the prose does not flow. Much of the writing is just "On this day this happened."

I am a bit short on time and these are just initial impressions. I'll add more later. Cheers--Looper5920 18:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - for many of the same reasons. I just added the first inline citation to the article because the existing link was malformed. Also added a link to the term TO&E. It's fair for military jargon to be cited, but it might be better to enumerate some of those elements as a diagram or at least a bulleted list rather than having to read through the TO&E by text. I was somewhat confused as to what happened to the aero squadron that had initially been assigned in 1917, which was missing (apparently) when the unit got to France, even though the division was larger. There could have been links to the first instances of such terms as brigade, regiment, battery, etc., so those unfamiliar with such military units could read more about them. The article also had a propensity to refer to units such as "1-4 CAV." What is that? It should more properly spell out specifically what that unit would be the first time: 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment] (1-4 CAV). Actually there is an article on Wikipedia for the U.S. 4th Cavalry Regiment, which could be linked to, rather than an off-site link to GlobalSecurity.org, though an inline citation could reference the other site. --Petercorless 10:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm afraid that this article currently doesn't come close to A class, though it is a lot better than most of the articles on US Army divisions. My main concerns are:
  • Much of the article is just lists of commanders and assignments. These should be converted to prose.
  • There's lots of military jargon - eg "World War II Prep", "CONUS", "TO&E", "reconnaissance-in-force". These should be converted into terms a general reader can understand.
  • As noted above, the article needs lots of citations to reach A class. --Nick Dowling 06:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree with the previous comments, especially concerning the long lists of deployments and units and whatnot. Furthermore, I think that a lot of the sections need some expansion - especially the combat sections (alternatively, if there's nothing more to write they can be merged). But a lot of these short sections can have expension, given that many of them offer no details on operations during the deployment to that area - see: Bosnia/Kosovo and especially 2006 Iraqi Freedom, which I think you can find online media sources on. That said, the article needs many more inline citations, but this has already been mentioned before. JonCatalan 18:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for much the same reasons as above. Introduction too brief, too many lists (reads difficultly), too much jargon, way too few references for A-class. Arnoutf 14:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Pontiac's Rebellion

Previous nomination

Renomination by Wandalstouring. Kirill Lokshin 02:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support as before. Carom 02:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - needs a few more refs in places. Buckshot06 03:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Until its cited sufficiently. Many paragraphs are noticeably bare.

Seems to be very well written though, and deserves to be A class at least. Raymond Palmer 03:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Very well written, just needs more inline citations. Cla68 07:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Lengthy, one of the most detailed, well-written, and nicely formatted (i.e. looks nice on the page, lots of quotes, pictures, maps, which are well-placed, well-labeled, not overwheleming, etc) articles I've seen in some time. LordAmeth 13:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great article, but needs more cits. Kyriakos 01:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support as it is. The refs are a slight problem, but not big enough to incite rejection in this case. And on another note, per Raymond, the prose is fantastic. Kirill, don't be afraid to exercise some dictatorial authority in ignoring the opposing votes (kidding).UberCryxic 02:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support (I want to point out that my nomination was only a formal issue because this article had failed for lack of assessments.) The citation can be improved as a lot of sources are used. Probably someone started this from a not too well referenced article. Wandalstouring 02:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

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.

---

Operation Igloo White

For your perusal. RM Gillespie 16:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to see a few more citations to cover a couple places that are pretty bare. Specifically, the first paragraph of "Pinball Wizards" and the first two paragraphs of "Conclusion." Other than that, it looks good. Carom 17:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose In general well-written and well-cited, good flow. However:

1. Needs a proofread. There are missing quotation marks, many broken citations that appear as question marks in the references section.
2. Every book-scanned image is completely crooked. Look at the margins of the images compared to the margins of the surrounding boxes.
3. Lacks depth. I was expecting a much more technical article with descriptions of the sensors, this is a nice overview but it left me wanting for more info. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 08:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose there are to many question marks in the reference section. When these question cites are replaed with cites that have meaningful information I will reconsider. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm gonna have to go with oppose also for alot of the reasons that Emt147 listed, specifically the depth of the article and the images included in the article. It is a well organized and well written article, however it lacks detail and depth. The image issue is secondary, but better images would only enhance the article as a whole. Spot87 02:08, 8 January 2007 (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.

---

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.

---

B-17 Flying Fortress

Article was been extensively reviewed and sourced, is comprehensive, follows guidelines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content and this project. Hoping FAC is next. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. It does appear to be long, detailed, thorough, and well-written. The introduction, while concise, accurate, and also well-written, somehow seems a bit off to me. Maybe a bit too short. Maybe if you could add a sentence or two? Or smoosh the whole thing together into one paragraph, eliminating the line breaks, to make it look more solid on the page? Just an appearance-on-the-page thing, not really a content of the writing thing. LordAmeth 21:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. While the article is well-written and well-referenced, it lacks comprehensiveness. Specifically:

1. The lead section is too short (at least by FAC standards), and also contains some gushing POV (B-17's most notable features were high cruising altitude and durability, its payload, speed, and range were small compared to its contemporaries like the B-24 and the Lancaster). "One of the most significant" and "devastating payload" could be done away with.
2. The development section is too short. B-17 was a fairly unique design. The section essentially only deals with the prototype crash.
   1. I agree, and have tried to add content, but I find it just overlaps with whats found in the "Variants/design stages" section, so I've kept the development section to just the development up to the YB-17s and the entry into the war, and everything afterwards to the later section. Should this be changed? How about if we change the variants section to just a list and short description of each variant and move the current content to the design section? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      1. Comment No, you have the right time span for development (conception to entry into operational service) but a lot more can be said about B-17 development. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
         1. 'K, I'll work on it. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
3. The operational history section is too short. There is no comment at all on the poor operational accuracy of B-17 formations, on the fact that only the lead aircraft actually did the aiming due to mid-air collisions early in operational career resulting from all bombardiers looking down on the ground while maneuvering their aircraft. There should be some discussion on B-17's advantages and disadvantages compared to its contemporaries as well (see above, and of course without violating WP:NOR).
4. The post-war section is longer than Development and as long as Operational history and deals primarily with the few surviving warbirds.
5. The section on foreign service is non-existent. What about German-captured B-17s shadowing American formations? What about all the other countries in the "Operators" list (number serving, anything notable?)
   1. Foreign service operators (specifically Germany and Israel) are mentioned under the "Operators" section, but since Germany used them during the war I'll add a bit to the "Operational service" section as well. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Survivor does not equal Notable B-17. Most of the warbirds are late-war built cargo/hack aircraft with no notable history. Perhaps the section should be split up into Survivors and Notable aircraft.
7. IMHO nothing demonstrates the B-17 durability better than the photos of "All American" after it was rammed by a German fighter. http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/fuselag2.htm
   1. I'd love to add a pic of this but I can't find a source (although I'm sure it'll end up being an Airforces pic) - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

All in all a good start but I think it needs a lot more contents. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object per Emt147. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:52, 30 December 2006 (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.