Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2022/Failed

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Failed[edit]

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

7th Alabama Infantry Regiment[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

7th Alabama Infantry Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A Confederate unit that did not see major combat, but surprisingly well documented and a snapshot into the daily life of the ordinary Civil War soldier. Kges1901 (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'll review this a section at a time, lede last.

Organization and Pensacola Service

The first para is jumbled and needs a rewrite. I recommend it follow these points:

1) Give the pre-regimental constituent units first.

2) Then date for actual foundation of the regiment. And mention specific units serving on detached duty, please. As written, their names are uncertain.

3) Give candidates' "qualifications" before vote. And how many regimental officers were there anyhow? All elected?

4) I do not understand why Bragg's troop totals have any bearing on regimental organization. If it is germane, please show its relevance, and find a suitable location for the info.

You have great info here in mostly well-written sentences. However, sentence order is scrambled. A better chronology would help.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second para:
Two sentences should be reversed. Coltart banned gambling and insisted on barracks cleanup; then he became unpopular. And, please clarify, is Coltart second in command of the regiment?Georgejdorner (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a break.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The remaining paras of this section are nicely written. I question only the jammed propeller on the steamship. How did the ship escape? Repaired propeller? Kedging? Auxiliary sails?Georgejdorner (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography As I have no access to the sources, I must assume good faith. I would note that this is an extensive listing, given the narrow Scope of the subject.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox External links: In Search of...General William Henry Carroll is a dead link.

Automated peer review suggestions:

Article is a bit short, and could use more or more comprehensive information, plus more links (if possible). It also recommends thorough copyediting.

Redirects: Python code error. (So what does that signify?)

Reflinks: No changes needed.

Lede

I am unfamiliar with Civil War notability standards, but 7th Alabama seems to have an inconsequential history. I think some version of your nominating statement above as you second sentence would make the unit more important and thus more notable to the reader.

Also, by merely deeming Coltart unpopular, you scant the reasons for that unpopularity. Just a mention that he was a disciplinarian would do.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I would recommend extending the text to place 7th Alabama in the context of their superior units and theater of operations. There's an ambiguous reference to Bragg. Did he need the 7th for the added manpower for his operations? Etc.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolicited personal opinion from an ex-professional soldier:

Clean healthy barracks? No drunken gambling in said barracks? How dare he! The only mistake of Coltart's I can see, he did not order his lieutenants to order his sergeants to supervise duties instead of personally issuing orders.

And troops resentful of a sergeant in charge of a detail? Those are troops looking for a chance to desert.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kges can you have a look in George's comments? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

1st Louisiana Regulars Infantry Regiment[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

1st Louisiana Regulars Infantry Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A history of a unit whose history parallels the rise and fall of the Confederacy, but in some ways not your average Confederate with most of the rank and file Irish immigrants. In four years of war, casualties and desertions reduced this unit from a regiment to platoon strength. Kges1901 (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle[edit]

  • Following the victory of Lincoln in the 1860 election, - Per WP:GLOBAL, this would be better as "Following the victory of Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 U.S. presidential election" as some users may not be familiar with Lincoln.
  • Done
  • Louisiana Governor Thomas O. Moore moved rapidly to assure the secession of his state from the union. "Union" is a bit of an obfuscation referring to the constitutional union of states. Would be best if plainly said "the United States", "the country", or similar.
  • Done
  • Bradford took control of the New Orleans Marine Hospital at the New Orleans army barracks on 12 January and had its patients removed to another hospital in order to free space for newly mustered in regulars, an action much sensationalized in Northern newspapers. As in, creating space for where sick recruits could be hospitalized, or creating barrack space for them to live in?
  • Clarified
  • After a picket discovered the Confederate approach early in the morning of 9 October, the camp was charged by Colonel John K. Jackson's 3rd Battalion of the force and its occupants fled. This is a little confusing. The federal picket discovered the Confederate force, but the Confederates, presumably on the move, attacked the camp? Conflating the camp (stationary thing) and picket (group of soldiers) is the issue here. Recommend changing to say the Confederates discovered the picket (if accurate) or saying "their camp" (the feds') was charged.
  • The sequence is that one of the Union sentries gave the alarm as the Confederates approached, but the Union troops in the camp itself were unprepared to defend it so they fled as the Confederates attacked. Kges1901 (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made some minor changes to this text which I think help with clarity. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lindsay commanded a 550-man force in a predawn sortie on 27 March that drove in the Union pickets from Slack's Brigade of Veatch's Division, but were forced to retreat greatly outnumbered by two more brigades. The latter part of this sentence seems to be missing an additional word or punctuation.
  • Simplified
  • With regards to the infobox. is it truly accurate to say this unit's allegiance was to Louisiana, and not the Confederacy as a whole? I've heard of of the problems of unity in the Confederate forces, but overall I don't know the particulars of military hierarchy and law in the CSA, so I'm just asking to be sure.
  • Good point, since this unit was in Confederate service.

Comments from Georgejdorner[edit]

I ran this article through the suite of checks in the Toolbox. The automated Peer Review raises the following concerns:

Inadequate lede. Needs additional paragraphs, and adequate summary of main text.

Article could use more links.

May need to be reconfigured to summary style with subpages.

Weasel word alert.

Recommendation for copyediting.

All other Toolbox checks raised no concerns.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personally, I'm not sure as to the efficacy of automated peer review tools as some of these recommendations would not make sense. For example, the article is actually not long enough to need subpages. Kges1901 (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor am I a believer. I listed its reactions in case you could find them of use. Certainly, I am not going to disapprove your nomination over this.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the long hiatus.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

End of first sentence: Suggest "United States" for "country". More accurate, more impact.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last para: Patient removal "sensationalized", eh? Could it have been "propagandized"?06:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Formation

A very strong section. I was struck by the analysis of conditions driving recruitment.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pensacola

Very nicely done.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Movement to Corinth and scouting

Again, nicely done. However, I would encourage a footnote explaining bucking and gagging at end of para 1.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude and 6 April

A lucid and organized account. Beautiful vivid useful maps! That maps must be useful is a given; that it is a treat to the eye is a great bonus.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7 April

Well written, engaging.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corinth

Para 1, sentence 6 - "...mounting a series of skirmishes and burning bridges..." is awkward. Why not simply..."skirmishing and burning bridges..."?Georgejdorner (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of Kentucky and Stones River

I found myself wanting the addition of 'flank' to such brevities as arriving on someone's left, right, etc. 'Left flank' or 'right flank' is more easily understood.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also find myself wondering whether Cheatham was relieved and/or courtmartialed for his drunken incompetence. (Curiosity question only)Georgejdorner (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chickamauga

Para 1, sentence 5 - "...between 19 and 20 September." could more gracefully be "on 19 and 20 September."00:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Atlanta campaign

"Reduced to less than a hundred..." might better be "Reduced to fewer than a hundred"....Georgejdorner (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Para 3, sentence 3 - "...where he ordered he attempted a counterattack..." Which was it?Georgejdorner (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville

Para 1, sentence 7 needs a rewrite to restore chronology--first the troops suffer short rations and cold beds, then they are resupplied.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile and Surrender

Shouldn't that title read 'surrender'?Georgejdorner (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last para, penultimate sentence - ...'numbered close to 35 men.' is more properly 'numbered about 35 men.'Georgejdorner (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

That's an awful short lead for a long article. And again, the second para prob should be split. Granted, the basic actions of the unit are given, but in a very basic form. I believe the lead needs to be pumped up a bit; by supplying more info, you also enhance the unit's notability.

Suggested improvements

I offer the below with the aim of improving an already excellent text. These are not approval/disapproval items.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 24 hour clock is a bit much for many readers wedded to the 12 hour system. I suggest the insertion of 'hours' to cue the unwary, This is the 24 hour system. Thus '1030 hours', '2200 hours', etc.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, sprinkling an occasional added year marker in the text would slightly improve an already excellent chronology.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might look at splitting some of your big blocky paras into two or three for readability.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

End of commentsGeorgejdorner (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Kges1901 can you have a look into these reviews? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CPA[edit]

Will do this after George's comments are addressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Origins section isn't mentioned in the lead?
  • "consisting of an infantry and an artillery regiment modeled" This is a MOS:EGG.
  • "in combat during the Mexican–American War" Overlink here.
  • "ordered to Pensacola on the Florida Gulf Coast" Is this a proper noun? If so try to link it.
  • "As 1861 turned to summer and then fall" Try to avoid using seasons per MOS:SEASONS.
  • "raid on the night of 13 to 14 September" Per MOS:DATETOPRES we should use an en dash or slash.
  • "Santa Rosa Island on the night of 8 October" Is this the night of 7/8 or 8/9?
  • "on the night of 29 May before the retreat ended at Tupelo" Same as above?
  • "artillery in the spring and summer of that year" MOS:SEASONS here?
  • "At 11:30 on the morning of 19 September" I don't think the morning part is needed.
  • I see both the 24-hour military and 12-hour civilians times maybe standardise them?
  • "into the early spring of 1864" MOS:SEASONS here?
  • In the infobox the circa needs a template.

As promised that's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kges can you have a look in my comments? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Why is the title of Williams (1981) not in title case?
  • Optional: standardise the hyphenisation of the ISBNs.
  • I ran a Bot job to do this for you. But where is Norman? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a page range for Bergeron (2002)?
  • And do you actually mean "Several brigade officers became casualties encouraging their men to attack" to be read as the high officer casualties caused their men to become more aggressive? If not, perhaps 'While encouraging their men to attack several brigade officers became casualties' or similar?

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Little Rock campaign[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Little Rock campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Arkansas 1863. The Confederates are rather easily driven out of the Arkansas state capital in a campaign probably best known for the infamous duel between two Confederate generals. Hog Farm Talk 02:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias[edit]

  • Add a caption to the map in the background section.
    • Done
  • "..the Confederate firing on Ft. Sumter on April 12.." Rephrase to avoid a SEAOFBLUE. I'm also not keen on the phrase "firing on" as it is used here; the lead of that article seems more appropriate: "bombardment of".
    • Both points taken care of
  • "..threatened the state capitol of Little Rock. but running out of supplies.." Some more rephrasing needed here to tidy up the start of this sentence.
    • Done
  • "..Price order fortifications built.." Should be "ordered".
    • Done
  • "..and gave Brigadier General John S. Marmaduke's orders to monitor.." Either remove the possessive s, or tell us what Marmaduke had that was given orders.
    • Done the latter (cavalry)
  • "August 16 saw a minor skirmish between Davidson's men and Confederate cavalry.[20] Davidson sent out the 13th Illinois Cavalry Regiment on August 16, which routed.." Repetitive with the same date being mentioned twice. In fact, overall this article suffers from the date being mentioned too often. Try and replace more of them with relative phrases like "the next day" or "the day after" or "three days later".
    • I've taken a crack at replacing some of these
  • "..while Steele and the infantry moved to set up an operations hub at DeValls Bluff, which was hoped to be a healthier area. The movement for DeValls Bluff began the next day." It feels like this could all be one sentence, rather than having quite a short and fragmented sentence at the end.
    • Merged sentences
  • "..attempted to form a new line, but retreated from that one also." Not keen on the ending of this sentence; maybe something like ".., but were forced to retreat again."
    • Done
  • "..which strained relationships between him and Marmaduke even worse." Change to "..which further strained his relationship with Marmaduke."
    • Done
  • "Price began to doubt that Little Rock could be defended and had supplies transferred to Arkadelphia and began preparing.." Change to avoid repetition of "began".
    • Rephrased in a couple ways
  • "The August 27 fighting cost.." Personally, I think this would sound better as "The fighting on August 27 cost..", but it is probably just me.
    • Done
  • "Price had a little less than 8,000 men.." As this is countable, it should be "fewer than".
    • Done
  • "..in the Skirmish at Ashley's Mills." Change to "..in a skirmish at Ashley's Mills."
    • Done
  • "..made a fighting retreat 5 miles (8.0 km) back.." No need for that level of precision on the conversion; "8 km" is sufficient.
    • should be fixed
  • "..and the ensuing Battle of Bayou Meto was the heaviest.." Should this be Battle of Bayou Fourche?
    • Good catch; fixed
  • "..with historian Carl Moneyhon estimating.." Avoid the noun plus -ing construction.
    • Resolved
  • Question: is bayou wikilinked anywhere? It is used a lot, and I have no idea what it means.
    • I've added a link at the first spot where it's used not in a specific place name. (I suspect that bayou is a much more common word in AmEng than BrEng)
  • These are the specific issues I've found, but overall the prose is stilted and reads like a series of events strung together as bullet points, then converted into prose. To be completely honest, I think it would benefit from being heavily rewritten to tell a narrative, rather than a series of events. This is primarily achieved by showing how each event led onto or impacted the others, removing the detail, and just working on the big picture. Parts of the article do this quite well, but in other places, it doesn't really work for me at all I'm afraid.
  • The article would also benefit greatly from some maps showing the movements of the two armies and where significant actions took place, to give more context.

An interesting read as always, I look forward to your responses. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Harrias: my computer is fubar'd at the moment so it'll be next week before I can do any substantial rewriting. Hog Farm Talk 23:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • No rush, just ping me when you're done. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Harrias: - I'm beginning to do the rewrite to try to get this a more unified flow. Before I make a pass through the whole article, is this an improvement? I'm going to look to cut some of the more minor details, such as peripheral detail or place names that are largely meaningless to the overall events. Hog Farm Talk 03:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, definitely. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Harrias: - I'm through the first pass of working on the prose - significant changes made pretty much from the onset of the campaign to Bayou Meto, I thought that the Bayou Fourche coverage was less stilted. Still need to determine what to do with maps - I don't want to bother Hlj who's largely retired but did a nice Price's Raid map awhile back. It's beyond my ability to produce anything that's cartographic. Even the sources overall are lacking in maps - Huff has the maps that cover most of the campaign, although they're a bit rough. DeBlack has a decent map of the moves from Ashley's Mills to the end. If the maps are a deal-breaker, then withdrawal until I can get that situation worked out is probably best. Hog Farm Talk 22:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm away from home most of this week and next with work, but I'll try and take a look when I can. Maps aren't a deal breaker, depending if my time frees up next month, I might be able to lend a hand myself, but I can't commit to anything. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Harrias - have you been able to get back to this? It's okay if not. Hog Farm Talk 14:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iazyges[edit]

Claiming my spot here, will take a look soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed article at GAN, happy to support it here. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pendright[edit]

@Hog Farm: Let me know when you have cmpleted your rewrite and I'll start my review. Pendright (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: - I've made the first pass of the rewrite. Just waiting on Harrias to have the spare time to look over the rewrite. Any further help in polishing this up would be greatly appreciated. Hog Farm Talk 01:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: To jump-in now, before all the issues have been settled, woould disrespect Harris and his good fath efforts. So, ping me when Harris has compled his review. Pendright (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Suggestion: Perhaps emailing Harris would be more effective. Pendright (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: At this point in time, with deference to Harris, I'd be free to start a reiew in a day or two - should you still want me to do so. I should say, however, that I agree wth Harris about "show don't tell" and the use of transistional words and phrases between sentences and paragraphs in the text. Ping me whether it's yes or no. Pendright (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pendright: - I've gotten horribly busy in RL and will probably only sporadically active for most of the rest of November. I welcome any comments but can't promise to get to them in a timely manner. Hog Farm Talk 01:24, 4 November 2022

(UTC)

@Hog Farm: The place to begin,I believe, is with the Harris assessement of the article wherein he said the following:
"...but overall the prose is stilted and reads like a series of events strung together as bullet points, then converted into prose. To be completely honest, I think it would benefit from being heavily rewritten to tell a narrative, rather than a series of events. This is primarily achieved by showing how each event led onto or impacted the others, removing the detail, and just working on the big picture. Parts of the article do this quite well, but in other places, it doesn't really work for me at all I'm afraid."
I agree with the assessment but, more importatly, what
do you think about it? Pendright (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably true; my writing is generally lacking stylistically. (and it probably doesn't help that the sort of maps this needs is beyond my ability to create) I don't have the bandwidth to attempt a total rewrite at the moment and will be only marginally active for at least several weeks, so to avoid wasting everyone's time, this should probably be closed as failed/withdrawn (@WP:MILHIST coordinators: ). Hog Farm Talk 21:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Alt text would be a nice addition. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle[edit]

I'll get around to this one. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Confederacy should be linked in the lede.
    • Linked
  • The end of the Vicksburg campaign freed up additional Union troops for operations in Arkansas The end of the Vicksburg campaign in Mississippi
    • Done
  • Price's only real chance of success would be if a Union force attacked his fortifications head-on This is conjecture, and if an expert opinion it should be attributed in text, or if this was the belief of Price it should be made explicit.
    • This was the belief of Price, clarified (IMO he was probably right)
  • Over what body of water/geographic feature did Reed's Bridge cross?
    • Clarified it was Bayou Meto
  • Did Grant or Lincoln not have any comment on the fall of Little Rock? Or Davis, for that matter? The fall of a Confederate state capital seems like it would have considerable political consequences that would have elicited national comment.
    • I haven't seen anything in sources specifically mentioning comments by Grant, Lincoln, or Davis. I've added that it provided a morale boost to Union forces. The Confederate response was a bit more mixed, which I've tried to clarify a bit - there was some criticism, of course, but Price's superior backed the decision to withdraw. Arkansas was already lost to Davis anyway after Vicksburg fell - it was so isolated and cut off from Richmond that Kirby Smith became what is probably the closest thing to a military dictator America has ever seen. Hog Farm Talk 04:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • although this figure is incomplete and the true number is higher. Do we know why this figure is incomplete? Does it only cover a certain day of the campaign, or was a record lost, or the men left behind in the city not counted? The nature of the inaccurate reporting would be nice to know, if possible.
    • Incomplete reporting. Added. Confederate losses in the war are often notoriously hard to piece together
  • Did Halleck explain why he didn't want the federal forces to press onward, the same reasons as listed before that? Mention Halleck's position would also be nice.
    • Kerby says the orders from Halleck were to just hold and secure the new position. I checked several other sources as well (Huff, Christ, Cutrer) and they don't include any details on the matter.

@Indy beetle: - All to date have been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 19:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added a bit on a historic preservation tour. Otherwise, I think we're good here and I support promotion. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Bajrang[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): NeverTry4Me (talk)

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

Toolbox

NeverTry4Me (talk) attempted to nominate; I have created the nomination for them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Catlemur[edit]

  • The lede is supposed to summarize the contents of the article instead of providing new information (hence it does not need to be referenced). So parts of it need to be moved to the Background section (second and third paragraphs). In doing so it should equally summarize each of the article's sections, so it needs to be expanded. See WP:LEDE.
*  Done Done per source available without any personal view or opinion. -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 08:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my understanding Operation Bajrang forms part of the Assam insurgency and hence of the wider Insurgency in Northeast India, I included a relevant campaignbox but you removed it (I didn't quite understand your edit summary). The article's current Background section is quite limited for an A class article. Was Operation Bajrang part of a wider conflict? Why was ULFA fighting against the Indian government and when did their insurgency begin? A reader outside India would be highly unlikely to know any of this.
*  Done I removed it as the operation was the first one which is followed by several other military operations. Perhaps a template about those operations would be helpful. -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 08:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you have stated in the article ULFA was formed in 1979 and later launched an uprising (before 1990), so that implies that there was already an insurgency going on before Operation Bajrang. Hence Operation Bajrang was not the start of a new conflict but rather a part of preexisting one. So I still fail to understand the reasoning behind "Part of Indian military operations against North-eastern militants" when every single article about insurgencies includes both government launched and insurgent launched operations e.g. Template:Campaignbox Greek Civil War, Template:Campaignbox Naxalite insurgency etc.--Catlemur (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "killing of many Congress leaders" - Can you specify the Congress you are writing about?
*  Done Done. It was then Congress(I), and now Indian National Congress. I kept Congress(I) in the state election line as per sources. -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 08:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forest of Lakhipathar where the ULFA had their Central Headquarter (CHQ) and General Headquarter (GHQ) in the forest of Charaipung" - Where are those located? The article does not currently specify Assam's location within India as well. A map would be much appreciated.
*  Done Done. Added one per collection. But as I don't have any images, and can't add them without avoiding the COPYRIGHT issue, I can't add. If you suggest, I can add some maps. -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 08:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2 days before the operation was started" → "two days" per MOS:NUMERAL.
*  Done Fixed. -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 08:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink jawans and put it in italics since it's an Indian term.
*  Done Fixed. -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 08:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some army personnel were also killed as the result of gunfight and landmine explosions that ULFA militants made the set up as they had prior information about the army operation." - This sentence seems redundant since you have already mentioned that ULFA had set up mines and was aware of the Indian army's plans from beforehand.
*  Done It's also fixed within my capacity. -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 08:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • LTTE is wikilinked three times in one sentence, one time is enough.
*  Done Done. -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 08:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you expand on the topic of LTTE-ULFA collaboration?
*  Done Done per sources available. -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 08:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "15 activists were killed" - Are activists and militants the same thing in this context?
*  Done Done. Activists as per source, but more sources available about the killing of civilians and sympathizers. My intention was not to go beyond claims supported by sources. Maintained POV. -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 08:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*  Done Done. -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 08:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Assam Pradesh Congress(I) Committee's General secretary Manabendra Sarma" - Capitalize secretary.
*  Done Done. -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 08:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is very little detail about the course of the operation itself.
*  Done Done. -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 08:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was anyone ever tried or punished for the alleged atrocities?
*  Done None faced any trial as the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act provides the power to the army as "Army officers have legal immunity for their actions. There can be no prosecution, suit, or any other legal proceeding against anyone acting under that law. Nor is the government's judgment on why an area is found to be disturbed subject to judicial review." The Act is widely criticized and for decades several protests against the Act were held but the Indian government has yet not repealed this controversial act. The Act was introduced in 1958, when there was no insurgency in Assam. -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 08:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "escaped to their Bangladesh camp" - Where was the camp located exactly?
*  Done Done. Camps were in Sherpur of Bangladesh -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 08:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide more details about the impact of the operation on the course of the ULFA insurgency?--Catlemur (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*  Done Impacts are in the Assamese language, a few in English. Will that work? as per source avalaible. -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 08:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry @Catlemur: for the late response as I was not aware (not pinged). Any improvement by others will be accepted in good faith. -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 08:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the image File:Op-Bajrang-Img.jpg taken from? Unless you personally took that photo it is not your own work, so the Licensing would be different.
  • Can you please alphabetize the Bibliography section?
  • "there was an uprising of nationalism in Assam" - Do you mean a nationalist uprising?
  • There should be at least one separate paragraph dedicated entirely to the Assam Movement and origins of the insurgency. With the events of 1989-1990 being split into a second one.
  • "loans up to Rs 2 Lakh" - This also falls under MOS:CRORE.--Catlemur (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that the nominator was indeffed a couple weeks ago, I'm going to be closing this as unsuccessful for the time being; NeverTry4Me if you're ever able to come back this can be renominated. Hog Farm Talk 03:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Arthur Phillip[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Knightmare 3112 (talk)

Arthur Phillip (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I'd like to get it to FA and at the peer review it was recommended nominating here first Knightmare 3112 (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D[edit]

I'm surprised this review hasn't attracted more interest - you might want to advertise it at WT:AUSTRALIA. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "Serving under Captain Michael Everitt, Phillip also served" - bit repeditive
    • Re-worded those couple sentences to not use serve so much
  • The second para of the lead should make some note of Phillip's policy towards and relationships with Indigenous Australians
    • Noted the initial policy and relationships with the Indigenous Peoples
  • "Like his predecessor, Lord Germain, he turned to Phillip for advice" - the original advice doesn't seem to have been noted in the article?
    • Re-worded that whole section hopefully makes better sense now
  • "Phillip, with Lieutenant Philip Gidley King, took charge of the 64-gun HMS Europa" - this is confusing. Stating what King's role was will clarify it.
    • As above
  • " employed him to spy on the French naval arsenals at Toulon and other ports" - what did this involve?
  • Why was Phillip selected as the first governor of NSW?
  • "whose preference, it was to be supposed, would be requisite at all times" - over complex
    • Re-worded, that was a direct quote from Hunter's book
  • The second para in the 'Voyage to Colony of New South Wales' section is currently unreferenced
  • There's a 'clarification needed' tag
  • "An annual service of remembrance is held at the church around Phillip's birthdate by the Britain–Australia Society." - needs a reference
  • The first two paras of the 'Legacy' section are unreferenced
  • There needs to be a broader discussion of the historiography covering Philip than just his ADB entry.
  • "Sam Neill in the 2005 film The Incredible Journey of Mary Bryant and David Wenham in the 2015 mini-series Banished" - needs a reference
    • Added references for both

Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Knightmare 3112 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild what? Knightmare 3112 (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you responded to Nick-D's comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of them as I don't currently have access to offline sources Knightmare 3112 (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CPA[edit]

  • Can you merge the first paragraph with the second one?
  • "receive medical treatment for kidney stones" --> "receive medical treatment for his kidney stones"?
  • Maybe add his role in the Portuguese Navy in the lead?
  • "apprentice aboard Fortune, a 210-ton whaling vessel" Which kind of tons?
  • "ground for the erection of tents.[52][51][53]" Re-order the refs.
  • "receive replies to his dispatches from his superiors in London.[56][clarification needed]" There's a "clarification needed" template here?
  • "through gift-giving, hilarity, and dancing, but also by showing them what their guns could do.[72][38]" Re-order the refs here.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of British deception formations in World War II[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

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

Toolbox

Another in the series of lists dedicated to British formations during the Second World War. This lists all the armies, corps, divisions, and independent brigades (there was a lack of information to provide a full account of all notional brigades. When known, they are listed within the note for the bogus division they were assigned to) formed for deception purposes. The deception efforts of the war are not my specialty, although I have tried - based off the various sources - to provide a general overview of the various order of battle deception efforts and how they were conducted to provide context to the list. The list has been given the once over by the guild of copy editors. I welcome all feedback to whip this into A-Class shape.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
  • File:Bantam.png — could you add the source of the information in the image description?

All images look OK for licensing (t · c) buidhe 19:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your source review. I have overhauled the commons page for this image, including source info and PD-UK Gov.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe if the Official History of New Zealand in the Second World War 1939–45 html versions or other sources are carefully searched, they will provide a reference for the fact that the New Zealand Division in Egypt was retitled "2nd New Zealand Division" and the Maadi base camp notionally became "6th New Zealand Division" under the "Cascade scheme" (don't search for 'Operation Cascade,' use 'Cascade scheme.') Buckshot06 (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I inserted a reference for this from another source some time ago. From 2nd New Zealand Division: Malcolm Thomas and Cliff Lord, 'New Zealand Army Distinguishing Patches 1911–1991,' 1995, Part One, 50, 158 (Appendix I). Buckshot06 (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah-ha!! Exact description at http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Prob-c4.html, down to numbering of imaginary infantry brigades and Field Ambulances. If memory serves correctly at Thomas & Lord above in Part One there is a full list of notional imaginary units and subunits. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I have added in a note, after the mention of there being New Zealand deception formations, which outlines the NZD->2NZD and the training camp as examples of the NZ contribution to Cascade. I have also added Thomas and Lord in a new further reading section. I have not added all mention of NZ formations, as that probably should be in its own article (or grouped together with other CW deception formations).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As this list only covers armies, corps, divisions, and independent brigades, there's no other NZ formations to list. If your scope includes other Dominion/Colonial formations like 10 African Airborne, 6 Div should just be added to the main listing,maybe after or before 10th African Airborne Division. As an aside, I was interested to read 3rd Armoured Division was to be formed (in reality), but was cancelled; there's only one gap in the armoured divisions sequence, 4th Armoured Division. Have you ever heard anything about that? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amended: actually 6 NZ Division would fill the gap nicely between 5th Armoured Div and 7th Division (Cyprus). Buckshot06 (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot to come back here. Looks like you found List of Allied deception formations in World War II‎ that I started work on just after this conversation. As you have noticed, the list includes the NZ deception formations. I have - for real and deception - included the African formations within the British Army lists as they appear to be an extension of it rather than part of their own army ala the Indian Army, the Canandian Army etc.
Unfortunately, so far, I have not found anything yet about a potential 4th Armoured Division.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D[edit]

This article is very interesting, and in good shape. I have the following comments:

  • The 'background' section would greatly benefit from sub-headings
  • "double the number of forces" - bit awkward
  • "Deception formations was not limited to British forces" - ditto
  • " MI5, the British security service, had eliminated the German spy ring" - I think that there may have been multiple spy networks?
  • The background section should note that the German intelligence services were pretty bad at estimating enemy force levels. They got Soviet strengths disastrously wrong throughout the war, and the Soviets also ran very effective deception campaigns as well.
  • Watch out for over-use of phrases like 'notionally'. See the 5th Airborne Division entry, for instance.
  • There's a fair bit of over-linking various deception units in the entries on divisions
  • What did maintaining the 70th division on the OOB involve?
  • Have any authors commented on whether the British created too many deception units, or ran significant risks in creating this many? Inflating their army by this much or so long seems to have been rather risky. Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EnigmaMcmxc ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EnigmaMcmxc has not edited Wikipedia for six weeks. Possibly this one needs archiving? @WP:MILHIST coordinators:  ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree; I'm going to go ahead and close this one. @EnigmaMcmxc: when you're ready to get back to this one I can reopen it for you. Hog Farm Talk 06:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Sayfo[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Buidhe (talk)

Sayfo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article is about the lesser-known sibling of the Armenian genocide. I am thankful for an extensive GAN and hope to get it to FAC, but it may need further polishing to make its subject matter understandable to a broad audience. (t · c) buidhe 23:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{@Milhist}} Thanks everyone for their input. I am withdrawing this to nominate at FAC. (t · c) buidhe 15:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed this. Hog Farm Talk 15:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ichthyovenator

  • The name debate is a bit bothersome when writing articles and while Assyrian seems to be most common, I presume people who identify as Syriacs, Chaldeans or Arameans do not call this the Assyrian genocide. Is it worthwile to note this or is "Assyrian genocide" far more predominant than any alternative name (since that and Sayfo are the only given in the lead)? Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point, but of the possible variations "Assyrian genocide" is the only name in common use: 448 results on Google scholar compared to 16 for "Chaldean genocide", 20 for "Syriac genocide", 10 for "Aramean genocide". In the article, I try to use sectarian identifications or failing that "Assyrian" for East Syriac and "Syriac" for West Syriac populations, following the use in reliable sources. (Most Chaldeans lived outside the areas affected by the genocide.) (t · c) buidhe 11:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, makes sense. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason for not having an infobox (as in Armenian genocide, The Holocaust, Holodomor, Greek genocide etc.)? Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it would benefit the article. Most possible parameters are too complex, vague, or unknown to summarize easily in infobox format. (t · c) buidhe 15:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article mentions that the 250,000 and 275,000 figures seem to be exaggerations and that they are impossible to verify. Are there any lower scholarly estimates for a total death toll? I notice for instance that the article on the Armenian genocide includes a death toll of "600,000–1.5 million" which is quite a wide range. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no such estimates to my knowledge. (t · c) buidhe 15:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the Ottoman Empire was organized by religion, Ottoman officials referred to populations by their religious affiliation rather than ethnicity when I wrote most of what's currently at History of the Assyrians I incorporated that the Armenians were organized into the single Armenian millet despite some interreligious differences per Donabed (2019), p. 118; not sure if that's accurate but either that should be mentioned here or what I wrote needs to be changed.
    • I believe both these things are true. Originally, the Armenian millet included all Armenian churches as well as the Syriac Orthodox, Chaldean Catholic Church, and Church of the East (per Gaunt and Suny), and several others. In the nineteenth century some of these churches obtained their own millet. I think I have read somewhere that Assyrians/Syriacs were sometimes known as Ermeni because of their association with the millet, which may explain why some were targeted for being "Armenians" in 1915.
Ah I see; yes, makes sense. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • distinguish themselves from the official religion of the Byzantine Empire since this was in 410 the Western Roman Empire was still around and presumably both halves of the empire followed the same form of Christianity - I would change this to Roman Empire but Byzantine is not technically incorrect. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done
  • I was unfamiliar with the term "gendarmerie" - suggest linking and/or explaining it in the text
    • Done
  • for a written promise that the Assyrians would not side with Russia or permit Nestorian tribes to take up arms against the Ottoman government This is the only spot in the article where "Nestorian" is used as a descriptor for the people/religion; maybe it should be replaced since Nestorianism states that In modern religious studies, this label has been criticized as improper and misleading.
    • Rephrased
  • contained 104 pages of its 684 pages about the fate of Assyrians: would not devoted 104 out of its 684 pages... be the more usual phrasing? Could be wrong on this.
    • Done
  • resolutions passed by the parliaments of Sweden (in 2010); ← replace this semicolon with a comma.
  • In 2001, the National Security Council (Turkish intelligence agency) commissioned a report on the activities of the Assyrian diaspora. - this is interesting but I don't understand its relevance to the "denial and justification" section.
  • I've noticed that both "Sayfo" and "Assyrian genocide" are used interchangeably in the text (and not only in quotes) - is there a reason for this (otherwise one of them should probably be used consistently). Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed the two points above and replaced almost all uses of "Assyrian genocide" with Sayfo to be consistent. I wonder if you would take a look at an IP's comments at Talk:Sayfo#Two_different_meanings_for_"Assyrian"? I am not entirely sure how to resolve this or the best way to refer to victims of the genocide collectively. Thanks so much for your comments! (t · c) buidhe 16:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: No problem! It was a fascinating (albeit horrific) read. When it comes to a collective name I really don't know; there is really no possible option that will satisfy everyone. At History of the Assyrians and Assyrian continuity I used both terms more or less interchangeably. The IP is correct that "Syriac Christian" plays into religion more than ethnicity but I have seen it used as a name for the (ethnic) group as well, such as here. Its use has also been criticized because it's a shorthand for "Syriac-speaking Christians and not all Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs/Arameans speak Syriac. Among "Assyrian", "Syriac", "Aramean" and "Chaldean", "Assyrian" is the most prevalent one as a designation for the entire group, such as here, but I think you're right in using the other names in cases where church affiliation is known. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With the comments above addressed and after having reviewed the A-class criteria I think this definitely fulfills them, so supporting. Though it's worth looking into, I don't think the somewhat inconsistent use of names holds this back - they are inconsistent in WP:RS as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

Will review at some point over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 19:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recommend in-text attribution for the lengthy quote at the beginning of the worsening conditions section
    • Done
  • "The Assyrians of Hakkari and Persia resisted conscription into the Ottoman army" - so were the Ottomans trying to conscript Assyrians from the neighboring country of Persia into their armies?
    • That's the implication in the cited source, which is not unreasonable since the Ottomans were recruiting beyond their borders, but I can't verify it in other sources so I took it out.

More to come later. Hog Farm Talk 16:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "As a result, Haydar Bey, the vali of Mosul" - Gloss vali, it's evidently some rank of official but not entirely clear of what magnitude
    • Fixed by using "governor"

Should be studying for the CPA exam, but I don't really want to do that right now, so I'll finish off this review and listen to some red dirt country.

  • "In late September and October 1914 the attacks were on a large scale and once the attackers came close to Urmia; many Assyrian villages were attacked" - I'm not sure this is quite grammatical - I suspect either the semicolon should be a comma, or the "and" after "scale" should be removed
    • Rephrased
  • "The Persian government refused to allow the return of Assyrians who had fled as requested by the United Kingdom" - not 100% clear - did the UK request that the Assyrians would return to Persia, or was the UK requests Persia to refuse to allow the return?
    • Clarify, the former
  • Provide language of work for Hellot
    • Done
  • Sources look fine for reliability
  • Did not assess image licensing, as there's several images I don't feel competent to try to sort out the licensing on

Hog Farm Talk 17:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks so much for your review! Good luck on the exam :) (t · c) buidhe 21:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with the caveat I don't feel qualified to comment on the nomenclature used for the topic. Hog Farm Talk 22:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Gallic Wars[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): CaptainEek (talk)

Gallic Wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Eight critical years that catapulted Julius Caesar to such wealth and fame that he was able to cross the Rubicon, putting in motion a civil war that would lead to the end the Roman Republic and rise an empire in its place. The war and its study raises important questions about what it means for the victor to write history. As my DYK noted, Julius Caesar's portrayal of his actions in the Gallic Wars have led historians to call him one of history's first "spin doctors." I received an unusually thorough GA review from Levivich, for which I am quite thankful. I thus think it ready to run the A-gauntlet. This is my first time at A-class, so please bear with me, there are some things I am still learning about MILHIST :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments from HF[edit]

Some source formatting issues here, from a quick look

  • "Siege of Alesia". Archived from the original on 17 October 2017." - needs the publisher
  • " Caesar062308 (7 June 2016). "Tide and time: Re-dating Caesar's invasion of Britain". www.txstate.edu. Retrieved 27 November 2020." - source link is dead
Actually replaced with the original source, since the Txstate thing was actually a press release about the article CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Luibheid, 1970 & 88–94." - ref formatting
  • There's a short ref to Herzfeld 1975 but the only Herzfeld long reference is 1960
  • McCarty 2008 is missing the publisher.

Hog Farm Talk 05:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm Done! Thanks for the comments. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA[edit]

  • There are some MOS:SANDWICH issues here. It might be a good idea to remove these issues. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @CPA-5 The guidance of sandwich notes that wide images across from each other are to be avoided. But it does not seem to offer the same warning for regular size images. Which images did you have in mind? How would you suggest I fix it without having to just remove images? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CaptainEek: sorry for taking so long to answer this. You can use "multiple image" template it will put the images under each other. All the images left of the "55 BC: Crossing the Rhine and the English Channel", "Siege of Alesia, end of the revolt" and the "51 and 50 BC: Pacification of the last Gauls" should be deleted or moved with "multiple image" template. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Johannes Schade[edit]

Ave User:CaptainEek. This looks indeed very good and I will probably have only minor remarks. I lack experience as a reviewer. Please, just ignore me when I talk rubbish or better point out where I went wrong—and thank you so much for having caused the deprecation of inline parenthetical referencing. You are famous for that and I think people expect more of the same from you. What about deprecating some of the duplicate citation templates. But now let's go into medias res. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before the article content

  • English variety. - I suppose it's American English.
I hope you understand this issue better than I do. I would have expected that the English variant of an article must always be declared. However, MOS:ENGVAR only discusses the variability of the English used in the articles and does not seem to prescribe the use of the corresponding tag; MOS:TIES seems to prescribe the use of such a tag but only in cases of a national tie between the subject and the English variant. There is no national tie in the present case, but perhaps a European one. Anyway, please consider adding the tag indicating the variant you think should be applied, e.g. {{Use British English}}, {{Use Oxford spelling}}, {{EngvarB}}, {{Use European English}}. With thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done I still think you should add the tag to indicate the article's English variety.
 Done

Infobox

  • Infobox too long? - I feel the article's infobox is too long, but I must admit that I have found no recommendations or prescriptions in that regard in the guidelines.
The other changes have cut it down a bit
 Done Accepted
  • Territorial changes, Roman Republic annexes Gaul. - Past tense is generally used in Wikipedia, hence change to "annexed".
Not so in infoboxes? WW2, WWI for example
I do not find examples of present tense in the infoboxes of the articles WW1 and WW2. The entries in infoboxes are rarely entire sentences and usually lack verbs. This is also the case of the infoboxes you cite as examples. Perhaps change to "Annexation of Gaul by the Roman Republic" or similar, avoiding the use of a verb. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneAfter all you may well be right and present tense is correct even in an history article. Accepted.
  • Territorial changes, Gaul becomes a Roman province. - Not really needed, omit, otherwise change to past tense.
 Done
  • Location. - Why is "Northern Italy" included as a location of the Gallic Wars? Perhaps it is not necessary to enumerate modern countries. Something like "Gaul with incursions into Britain and beyond the Rhine" might be good enough.
I think modern readers will be more likely to know where Italy is than the Rhine
But why mention "Northern Italy"? the Gallic wars were not fought in northern Italy. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done I see now you explain Gaul by saying "Gaul (present-date France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Switzerland, and norther Italy)". This is a large interpretaton of Gaul, not Caesar's ("Gaul is a whole divided in three parts..."), which excludes Gallia Cisalpina and Gallia Narbonensis. Caesar's definition is the one relevant here, hence without Northern Italy. Don't you agree?
  • Belligerents. - Why do Iberians appear as belligerents? They do not seem to be mentioned in the body's text.
 Done
  • Commanders and leaders. - Only people mentioned in the body should be mentioned in the infobox. There should be no need for a citation in this list, nor should it be necessary to say "and others" WP:INFOBOXCITE.
 Done
  • Strength. - In principle there should be no citations, but in this case I find them useful. However, they should just be repeats from the ones in the body and should include pages.
 Partly done I've just removed Appian and Plutarchs numbers. I haven't done the same in the casualties; Appians work weirdly doesn't have page numbers, and I don't have Field's book that quotes Plutarch
  • Citations in the infobox. - Normally, the infobox, just like the lead, should not introduce new information but should summarise or present in a different format information that has been presented in the body. WP:INFOBOXCITE says "editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article."
 Done
  • Image: image_size. - The default for the size of the image in the infobox is 220px. This value can be adjusted by the user and should therefore not be fixed to a size given in pixels (WP:IMGSIZE). You specify "| image_size = 300px". |image_size= should therefore be used only exceptionally. The |image_upright= can be used instead or the "upright" parameter of the File: such as in: [[File]]: [[File:name|frameless|center|upright=1.4]]. The value 1.4 would specify a width of 308 pixels, given the mentioned default width.
 Done
  • Breaks. - MOS:NOBR forbids the use of HTML Breaks, i.e. <br />. I know they are sometimes difficult or awkward to avoid and I use them myself in some situations, but not in the infobox where they are easy to replace with {{Plainlist}} or {{Unbulleted list}}.
 Done

Lead

  • 1st paragraph. - In the 1st sentence you seem to define the Gallic wars as excluding the excursions into present-day England, but in the 2nd sentence you seem to include it.
 Done
  • 1st paragraph: Britonic. - I would prefer "British". The article Roman Britain uses it. Wiktionary does not recognize "Britonic" as an English word. The words "Brittonic" and "Brythonic" pertain to a group of Celtic languages, that includes Welsh.
 Done
  • 2nd paragraph: nearly defeated him. - I would prefer "almost defeated him" over "nearly defeated him" as "nearly" might be interpreted as meaning they were defeated by a narrow margin.
 Done
  • 2nd paragraph: indomitable siege works at the Battle of Alesia crushed .... - The word "indomitable" means "which cannot be tamed" and is usually applied to living beings, not to siege works. Also, siege works, by themselves, seldom crush people.
Indomitable is synonymous to unconquerable, according to Merriam Webster. I'm quite fond of the wording I must admit.
It means "untamable" from the Latin verb domitare to tame. You cannot tame a fortification. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Since you really seem to like indomitable fortifications, let's have them. Accepted.
Thank you :)
  • 4th paragraph: consider it to be unreliable. - You discuss the strong and weak sides of Caesar's Commentaries very well elsewhere. This blunt statement seems excessive (IMHO). To say they are unreliable sounds as if not a single word were true and all pure invention: Caesar's book a hoax. Obviously, Caesar is biased, but his account cannot be rejected altogether. What we have from Cassius Dio (who is more objective) is often quite summary and lacks many details that matter in the present context. Johannes Schade (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "prone to exaggeration"
 Done Is probably fine. Thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background: Sociopolitical

  • Only paragraph, citation source in Google Books, Gilliver 2003, pp. 7, 13–15. - This source is partly accessible by a (short) preview in Google Books, which already stops after page 14. Nevertheless, the |url= with the value https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=O1xsBgAAQBAJ should be added to the source description. Searches are also possible in Google Books. For the rest, the source is inaccessible, which is a pity because it is the most frequently used source in the article and renders the WP:V checking often impossible.
 Done

*Only paragraph, citation (adequate range?), Gilliver 2003, pp. 7, 13–15. - The cited page 7 covers about all the content of the paragraph except the last sentence. Pages 13 and 14 of the source are about the Roman army. Page 15 is not part of the preview. Retracted Johannes Schade (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background: Military

  • 2nd paragraph: Matthew 2009, p 35–37. - The text on the three cited pages of the source should support all statements made in the paragraph that need such support. You state (last sentence) that "A cohort held 480 men, ten of which combined with a small cavalry, engineers, and officers made a legion of around 5,000 men." I find no support for this statement on the three cited pages (if I have read them carefully enough; it is a lot of reading). Please mark, I do not doubt that what you say is true. Page 14 of Gilliver could have been cited as support for this statement. Matthew as an English-language source should omit the |language=. Also, the page number (|pages=37 !?) should appear in the inline citation, not in the source list. The spacing of the bibliographic entry for Matthew differs from all the others.
Ah, that paragraph is amalgamated from that and another book by Goldworthy, but I didn't have the page number so I had originally ommited it, since 480*10+a few other lads was roughly 5000 anyway. I have now cited to Goldsworthys book, but admit I know not the page
 Not done You must come up with a reasonable citation for "A cohort held 480 men, ten of which combined with a small cavalry, engineers, and officers made a legion of around 5,000 men." The book you mention, "In the name of Rome" can be previewed and searched at "https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-hd8CwAAQBAJ". I mentioned Gilliver p. 14 that would give (as I would use it) {{Sfn|Gilliver|9999|p=[https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=O1xsBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA14 14]|ps=. "The Roman legion was arranged in 10 cohorts of 6 centuries. The cohort of c. 480 men was a key tactical unit in the Roman army ..."}} I feel that would support your statement well enough. However, you are of course free to cite whatever RS you prefer.

However, perhaps I should not insist too much on the WP:V here. User:Gog the Mild told me "Verifiability gets a relatively light touch at ACR." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Donough_MacCarty,_1st_Earl_of_Clancarty#Notes), Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is to say, compared with FAC. The criterion at ACR is "all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate". Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good day, User:Gog the Mild. I take this for an encouragement for the apprentice-reviewer to go on. The criterion in FA is "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;". The most evident difference is that inline citations are not explicitly required in ACR. However, the nominee does graciously provide them. General references seem to have gone out of fashion for articles befond stubbyness (perhaps another archaic feature that could be thrown out in an RfC by CaptainEek). Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4th & last paragraph: Ariovistus. - The Suebian king appears here for the first time, a bit abruptly. Perhaps he should have been introduced earlier as king of the Suebi.
Actually, that mention wasn't key, so I just removed it so he could properly introduced further down
 Done Accepted Johannes Schade (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4th & last paragraph, citation: Grant 1974, p. 87. - First citation from Grant. You cite Grant 1974. I found Grant 1969 at Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/juliuscaesar0000gran_k2z5/. It seems the pagination agrees. Please add the |url= in the corresponding source list entry.
 Done
  • 4th & last paragraph, citation: Goldsworthy 2007, p. 246. - First citation from Goldsworthy. There seem to be issues with differences in pagination in various editions. You cite the 2007 edition. Where did you read it? Internet Archive has the 2008 edition at https://archive.org/details/caesarlifeofcolo00gold/. There is a Wikipeia article about the book: Caesar, Life of a Colossus but linking it in the template throws an Cite-book error.
I didn't read it. The sources were already extant when I overhauled the article.
 Not done No excuse, by nominating the article you took responsability for all that. You cite "Goldsworthy (2007) Caesar, Life of a Colossus". As reviewer I can ask you for an excerpt from the source so that I can make a spot check of text-source integrity (WP:INTEGRITY). I have the impression that you are unable to provide this. In this case I propose to move this citation and all other citations that point to this source, from the 2007 edition to the 2008 edition that is available from Internet Archive at "https://archive.org/details/caesarlifeofcolo00gold/". Therefore, please change the citation accordingly so that I can make the spot check.
 Done

Background: Julius Caesar

  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: agonist. - Did you mean "protagonist"?
No. I originally wrote antagonist, but someone else changed it to agonist. I think they're probably right, Ceasar could be the prot-agonist or ant-agonist depending on POV, but he was certainly an agonist.
 Done Accepted Johannes Schade (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st paragraph, 4th sentence, citation: von Ungern-Sternberg 2014, p. 91. - Implemented using {{Cite encyclopedia}} in the source list. Perhaps {{Cite book}} would be better. I do not believe this is an encyclopedia. In either case a page range should be given that covers the chapter or article written by Von Ungern-Sternberg. Add |edition= with value "2nd". The 1st edition was published in 2004.
 Not done
  • 1st paragraph, 5th sentence: via. - The preposition "via" (by the way of) should IMHO not be abused like this.
 Done
It already is?
 Done My bad.
  • 2nd paragraph: The assignment of the provinces that comprise what is now Northern Italy .... - I fail to see how present-day northern Italy corresponds to more than one former Roman province. Illyricum lies along the east coast of the Adriatic sea.
I don't understand? What do you suggest I write instead?
 Not done Simply use singular: "The assignment of the province that comprises ..."
 Done
  • 2nd paragraph, terminal citation source: Chrissanthos. - Curiously, the book's correct title is "Julius and Caesar" (please correct this in the source list). Also, the bibliographic description for this source should include an ISBN rather than an OCLC (I believe only the one or the other is needed).
Title fixed. I see no reason an OCLC and an ISBN cannot coexist?
 Done Sure, if you want to provide both, there is nothing wrong about it.
  • 2nd paragraph: Chrissanthos 2019, p. 73. - This citation might be mistaken. The paragraph is mainly about the four legions Caesar had at this stage, but they are not even mentioned on page 73; or is the text I am reading (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hUbzDwAAQBAJ) a differently paged edition?
    •  Not done Sorry I was wrong about the title, which is "The Year of Julius and Caesar". The book can be previewed in Google Books at "https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hUbzDwAAQBAJ" (please correct the title and add the URL to the book's description in the source list). However, the original objection still stands: nothing on page 73 seems to support the text (is this the wrong page?).
  • 3rd paragraph: It is possible that Gaul was not his initial target, he may have been planning a campaign against the Kingdom of Dacia .... - The sentence is supported by the citation "Caesar 1982" (in the middle of the paragraph), which lacks the page number or range (WP:PAGENUM). Add |url= with value "https://archive.org/details/conquestofgaul00juli/" and |edition= with value "2nd".
URL added. Alas, I can't find the exact page number since I can't preview it all, but I know once upon a time I had a copy that was accessible and I'm pretty sure it was somewhere in that range
 Not done The page number is required. WP:PAGENUM states "When citing lengthy sources, you should identify which part of a source is being cited." This is part of WP:CITE which is a Wikipedia guideline. You can read the entire book at the URL I gave you. The problem is that the searches fail so you have to do some reading. Johannes Schade (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning of the wars

  • Headings. - The other section headings featuring campaigns mention the year (58 BC in this case). This would probably be useful here as well. It is awkward to have a heading "Campaign against the Suebi" under the heading "Campaign against the Helvetii" as the former are not part of the latter.
  • 1st paragraph: They intended to travel across Gaul to the west coast, a route that would have taken them around the Alps .... - I fail to see how a route from Switzerland to the Saintonge would "take them around the Alps". Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3rd paragraph: Caesar's consideration of the Gallic request to enter Rome .... Not "Rome" but "Roman land". Johannes Schade
  • Illustration. - The colours of the arrows are difficult to distinguish. The campaign against the Belgae in 57 BC is omitted. A table that resumes the campaigns might be usedful in addition to a figure?

Battle of Bibracte

  • 1st paragraph, on a sloped hill. - Would you agree that "on a slope" would be good enough?
  • 2nd paragraph, a census written in Greek was found. - Which source says so? It is quite surely a misunderstanding. Caesar says it was written using Greek letters (litteris Graecis confectae; see https://archive.org/details/commentarii0102caesuoft/page/n71/) but does not state in which language it was written. It is well known that southern Gauls at Ceasar's time used the Greek alphabet when writing (which they did not do very often).
  • 2nd paragraph, Historians believe .... - Such a statement about what historians believe requires a citation that states that there is agreement among experts who have considered the topic. You cannot get there by citing individual historians, even big numbers of them (WP:RS/AC). It might pass if you leave the historians out and say directly "The total probably was ..." giving a citation for the minimum and a citation for the maximum of the range.
  • 2nd paragraph, citation: Delbrück 1990, pp. 475. - A single page is cited, hence "p." and not "pp.". This is the first citation of Delbrück in the text (there also is one in the infobox). Delbrück's original title is "Geschichte de Kriegskunst ...". The work has four volumes. Three German editions were published in 1900, 1908 and 1920 (I do not suggest that you cite it in the German edition). Caesar should be in the first volume. The English translation is based on the 3rd edtion (1920) of the German work. Internet Archive has all four German volumes but only volume 3 of the English translation. The first volume can be previewed in Google Books at (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MP2k4rx-Q_UC). I do not know where you read it, but it would be nice if you could use the edition described in Google Books. The preview includes the cited page 475 but unluckily not the page 46, cited further down in the text. Please complete the description given in the source list. Do not forget the "|author-link=Hans Delbrück", the volume number and the URL. I think it would be nice to mention the year of the original publication : "|orig-year=1st pub. 1920" in addition to the year of publicatio of the English version.
  • 3rd (last) paragraph, Caesar 1982, pp 25–29. - The paragraph is about Bibracte and is supported by a single citation "Caesar 1982, pp 25–29". I found this text in Internet Archive, 1982, 2nd edition, but the pages do not match. The cited pages 25–29 cover the end of the Introduction, written by Jane F Gardner (pp. 25–26), the Preface (p.26), and the beginning of the translation of Caesar's text (pp 28–29). I find the first mention of Bibracte on p 39. Please help me work out what is wrong.

Campaign against the Suebi

  • 1st paragraph: He found his excuse following victory over the Helvetii. A group of Gallic tribes congratulated him .... - These two sentences are supported by a citation "Walter 1952, p. 158". The cited page admittedly talks about Ariovistus but does not mention the "congratulation by a group of Gallic people".
  • 1st paragraph: Not only did Caesar have a responsibility to protect the longstanding allegiance of the Aedui, but this proposition presented an opportunity to expand Rome's borders, strengthen loyalty within Caesar’s army and establish him as the commander of Rome’s troops abroad.. - This sentence is supported by a citation "Goldsworthy 2007, p 271". The page 271 in the 2008 edition (Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/caesarlifeofcolo00gold/page/271/) is about the Usipetes and Tencteri. Quite obviously there is a shift in page numbers between the two editions. I wondered whether the text should not rather cite the page numbers from the accessible edition so that readers can follow, or if you could compare the two editions and tell me whether the shift is systematic and how big (in pages) the difference is? It would help reviewer a lot in the spotchecks usually expected in source reviews.
  • 2nd paragraph: Caesar began marched towards it and arrived before Ariovistus - Replace with: "Caesar marched towards it and arrived before Ariovistus". The sentence is supported by a citation "Goldsworthy 2007, pp. 274–275". In the 2008 edition the corresponding page seems to be 225. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd paragraph: They met under a truce at a knoll outside of town. The sentence is supported by a citation referring to "Walter 1952, pp. 173–176". Walter (p. 173) states "It was somewhere in Alsace, between Thann and Mulhouse" but the article maintains it was outside Visontio (present-day Besançon). A clear contradiction between the text and the source. Needs to be resolved.
  • Caption: Celtic cities are in green, Germanic cities in orange. - I suppose you mean "tribes". On the map, the cities are all black dots. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

57 BC: Campaigns in the east

  • 1st paragraph, terminal citation Gilliver 2003, pp. 36–40. - This citation (numbered 47 at present) is used here for the first time and is used altogether 6 times for quite different content. Is it really each time adequate and covers each time all the supported text? Is the whole 4-page range each time needed or could it be more specific? I cannot verify because the preview in Goggle Books ends at page 14.
  • 2nd paragraph: Intervening again in an intra-Gallic conflict, Caesar marched against the Belgae tribal confederation, who inhabited the area roughly bounded by modern-day Belgium. They had recently attacked a tribe allied with Rome and before marching with his army to meet them, Caesar ordered the Remi and other neighboring Gauls to investigate the Belgae's actions.. - These two sentences appear to be supported by a citation at the end of the 2nd sentence that reads "Esov 1996, p. 66". This citation indeed supports the second part of the second sentence "Caesar ordered the Remi and other neighboring Gauls to investigate the Belgae's actions." but not the text before it. It is however possible that the part before it is supported by the citation from Gilliver at the end of the paragraph, which I cannot read because Gilliver is not accessible beyond p 14. Could the tribe allied with Rome be named?
  • 2nd paragraph: The Belgae and the Romans encountered each other near Bibrax. - Replace with: "The Belgae and the Romans met near Bibrax, the main oppidum (fortified settlement) of the Remi ...", Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Nervii ambush: the battle of the Sabis

  • 1st Paragraph: The Nervii set up an ambush along the river Sambre. - According to the article Battle of the Sabis, the river was not the Sambre but the Selle near Saulzoir. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3rd paragraph: Caesar's cockiness had nearly ended in defeat. - As above in the lead, I suggest "almost" instead of "nearly" for clarity.
  • 3rd paragraph: The Belgae were broken, and most of the Germanic tribes offered submission to Rome. - Caesar does not include the Belgae among the Celts in his famous first sentence "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur." Authors discuss whether the Belgae were Germanic or Celtic in language or origin and it remains more or less unknown or uncertain. Also see the Nordwestblock hypothesis. The article does not mention Germanic tribes among the Belgae before and the cited sentence is therefore difficult to understand for the reader. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3rd paragraph: He saw a minor setback towards winter as he sent one of his officers to the Great St Bernard Pass, where local tribes fought back fiercely; he abandoned the campaign.. - Hardly understandable. Possibly marginal to the subject. Explain better, or remove? The French article (Guerre des Gaules) explains this episode with considerable detail. IMHO I would leave it out. One may even doubt whether the present-day Valais, where this happened, was part of Gaul.Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

56 BC: Campaign against the Veneti

  • 1st paragraph: anger Rome and prepared. - I suggest a more precise use of the tense: "had prepared", in order to stress anteriority.
  • 2nd paragraph: and Quintus Titurius Sabinus took forces to Normandy.. - The name "Normandy" is of course anachronistic. Probably best to call it "present-day Normandy". You did this very correctly in the 1st sentence of the lead. Just keep it up. We are talking about a time, long long ago. Besides, I fail to find any Wikipedia guideline about anachronisms. WP:PRESENTISM is only an essay. Can you possibly help me and point one out to me? I might need this for future reviews. The MOS says "Avoid anachronism" (MOS:PLACE). Do not confuse with WP.PLACE, which is about naming of articles about geographic places. Johannes Schade (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Morbihan

  • Caption: Rome is in red, Veneti in green. - Replace with: "Romans in red, Veneti in green" Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st paragraph: At last, the Roman fleet sailed, and encountered the Venetic fleet off the coast of Brittany in the Gulf of Morbihan. - The name "Morbihan" (Breton: mor-bihan; sea, little) is of course anachronistic. I would suggest "present-day Gulf of Morbihan".

Caesar's subordinates and mopping up

  • 1st paragraph: During the Venetic campaign, Caesar's subordinates had been busy pacifying Normandy and Aquitania.. - Anachronism. Probably "present-day Normandy".
  • 1st paragraph: The tribes consequently surrendered, yielding up all of Normandy to the Romans.. - Again: present-day Normandy.

Crossing the Rhine and the English channel

  • Template {{See also}}. - I wondered whether this is the correct template. Should it not rather be {{Tl:Main}}?

Revolts in Gaul

  • 3rd paragraph: sfn|Luibheid|1970|88–94. - Missing parameter name. Should be ("pp=" added): "{{sfn|Luibheid|1970|pp=88–94}}".
  • 3rd paragraph: captured a number of Roman troops as prisoners. - I suggest "taken some Romans prisoners".

52 BC: Vercingetorix's revolt

  • 2nd paragraph: Caesar took a winding route to the Gallic army to capture several oppidium for food.. - Replace with "Caesar took a winding route to the Gallic army to capture several oppida for food.". The Latin plural of "oppidum" is "oppida" (how did you come to "oppidium"?), otherwise you can use an English plural and write oppidums (IMHO less favored).

Siege of Alesia, end of the revolt

  • Should there not be a {{Main|Siege of Alesia}} under the heading?

1st paragraph, 1st sentence, citation: Delbrück 1990, p. 46. - Page 46 is unluckily not part of the preview in Google Books. However, on p. 499 there is a suitable citation which says that 80,000 gauls were defending the oppidum. Please check whether this is an error in the page number.


Pacification of the last Gauls

2nd paragraph: The legions were again wintered in Gaul. - Why passive voice?

The commentarii

  • 1st paragraph, citation, Grillo & Krebs 2018, p. 7. - Grillo & Krebs can be previewed in Google Books. The |url= in the source list should point to: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DpNADwAAQBAJ, not to WorldCat. The author should be added. Published in 2018, this should mention an ISBN instead of the OCLC.
  • 4th paragraph: Henige 1998. - The citation lacks the page. You must provide locations (WP:PAGENUM)
  • 5th & last paragraph: Grillo & Krebs 2018, pp. 20–27. - I read the text of the citation at https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DpNADwAAQBAJ where the cited page range is part of a chapter written by Raaflaub. He should be presented as the author, whereas Grillo and Krebs are editors of the collection.

In literature

  • Only paragraph, citation, Herzfeld 1960, p. 214. - The title of Herzfeld's book is "Geschichte in Gestalten". It is a collection of short biographies, written by various authors in many volumes. Caesar is in the 1st volume. The book is written in German. It does not seem to be accessible online. We have Adcock: "Caesar as Man of Letters", which can be read at: https://archive.org/search.php?query=Caesar%20as%20man%20of%20letters. Could Adcock be used instead Herzfeld? WP:NONENG prescribes "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they're available and of equal quality and relevance."

User:CaptainEek, I have completed my first traverse. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:CaptainEEK, please see my new insertions above under the headings "Before the article content" (concerning the English variety), under "Infobox", and "Lead". Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:CaptainEek, I have marked outstanding actions with Not done. Besides, I found where the MOS prescribes to avoid anachronisms. It is in MOS:PLACE. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Johannes Schade Your thorough comments are most appreciated. Thank you for bearing with me, I know I'm going at a bit of a snails pace. Between nominating and now, the world and my life have suddenly become much more complicated. I tackled a few more items, but I'm not done yet with the sections. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me. We are not in a hurry. Hope you come right, best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query[edit]

Hi CaptainEek, I note that you haven't posted here for a couple of months. I was wondering if you were still interested in taking this nomination forward. Could you confirm, or otherwise? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild Thanks for pinging me. I think I'm going to have to abandon this for the time being :( I really appreciate all the work by Johannes Schade and intend to implement it eventually. But I've lost the main book I used to write this, and life is a lot right now, so I no longer have the time or the resources to do this justice. Thanks for understanding. I'm so sorry. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eh well, life happens. Thanks for the prompt response. I'll archive this. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of U.S. general officers and flag officers killed in World War II[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

List of U.S. general officers and flag officers killed in World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I don't usually do lists, let alone nominate them here. No comprehensive list exists; this one has been compiled by Wikipedians, from multiple sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D[edit]

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

  • Are sources available that would support some analysis or discussion of the causes of death in the lead? The two suicides (and possible third in the case of John W. Wilcox Jr.) stand out, for instance. It would be interesting to know what proportion of 1-2 star officers were killed, given it looks to have been a fair few.
  • Remove the little graphic for the Medal of Honor recipients Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There were about 2,000 general officers and the article lists 48 as being killed. That is 2.4%, which is about the same as for all service personnel (2.5%). Suicide rate was around 5 per 100,000, so 2 out of 48 is much higher than the average. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from Indy beetle[edit]

  • Hate to be that guy, but frankly I'm not even sure this quite meets WP:NLIST as it currently appears. The list is drawn from three main sources: Warfare History Network, War on the Rocks, and The Biographical Dictionary of World War II Generals and Flag Officers. The former two seem somewhere in between glorified blogs and specialists publications, and while the latter is definitely scholarly, it's a biographical dictionary which is all inclusive of the top brass for the war, regardless of whether they died (though deaths are mention as part of the individual entries). With the current sourcing the topic seems marginally notable at best. I would recommend inclusion of more solidly scholarly works which note the significance of these fallen commanders as a group. I agree with Nick that it would be nice to have some scholarly discussion section for the deaths, if possible. Also, I'm not exactly sure why McNair and Buckley get special treatment in the lede due to a PRIMARY source (a US law), a secondary source would be preferred there. To be clear, I'm not opposing the nomination, but I think if possible these areas should be addressed to place the article on more solid ground. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ancell and Miller devote Appendix 2 to listing the generals who died and cause of death. McNair and Buckner are mentioned in the lead solely because of their post-war promotion to four-star rank, given that the article sorts by rank; a perennial question asked is who was the highest-ranking general killed. I have added Ancell and Miller as a secondary source. The list isn't very long though, and it would be possible to merge the separate lists into one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Article promoted by Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Thirty Years' War[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Robinvp11 (talk)

Thirty Years' War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review; it was rejected for GA status in 2008 due to lack of adequate Sources. This issue has now been addressed, while the article itself has been rewritten from the ground up. I believe it now meets the criteria. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe
  • The lead needs to be dramatically shortened to bring into compliance with MOS:LEAD; it's seven paragraphs but supposed to be no longer than four. (t · c) buidhe 03:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • checkY Done
  • For the lead image, I think it would be most helpful to see a map of the countries that participated in the war, rather than a woodcut that not all readers will be able to see clearly at infobox size. (t · c) buidhe 04:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by CPA[edit]

Since this article is about Protestant vs Catholic countries in the 17th century we don't know which calendar is used in this article. I assume New Style but Old Style should also be included in the dates. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • ☒N With very specific exceptions, historians use New Style, a standard adopted throughout Wikipedia and in this article. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Robinvp11: MOS:OSNS disagrees with this. Per this list and article Denmark-Norway adopted the New Style in 1700, Sweden adopted this in 1753, and some parts of the Dutch Republic used it until 1701. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above; I have not disputed the fact certain states adopted NS later than others. However, it is historical convention to use NS unless absolutely necessary to avoid confusion eg when comparing dates (see the article I have edited on the Glorious Revolution). If you read any of the Sources provided, they all follow this without exception, as do the vast majority of Wikipedia articles. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Catlemur[edit]

  • I wrote a separate article on how and why Wallenstein was assassinated, which can be found here: Eger Bloodbath. I suppose you can wikilink it. From my understanding the town was called Eger at the time of the war.
  • checkY Added the link; where there are conflicting names, I've used that provided by the relevant Wikipedia article which in this case is Cheb, not Eger.
  • As the article already mentions the Peace of Westphalia did not completely settle the conflict. There were still disagreements on whether the normative year imposed by the treaty took precedence over other treaties in regard to church properties. This nearly reignited the conflict in what came to be known as the Düsseldorf Cow War.
  • ☒N I think this point is sufficiently made already.
  • A translation needs to be provided for the titles of the sources that are not in English.
  • checkY Done
  • There is no section dedicated to how the war was actually fought. Not a single mention of the Tercio or Hakkapeliitta and very little mention what tactics were employed, what the soldiers were equipped with or what made commanders like Wallenstein stand out in the field.
  • ☒N This is about the Causes, Course and Outcome of the war, not 17th century tactics and structure - a huge topic in itself and worthy of its own article. If people want to learn more about Wallenstein, there's a link to his article. There are several references to the impact of recruitment and forcing soldiers to live off the land, which are more relevant here than cavalry tactics.
  • Can you mention Kipper und Wipper in the Human and financial cost of the war section?
  • checkY Done
  • checkY I've reduced the amount of space devoted to the witchcraft trials and expanded this to include cultural impact - see what you think.
  • "Markó 2000, p. ?." - What does the question mark mean here?
  • checkY Reference supplied by a previous editor, I couldn't find the page number and have now removed it.
  • From my understanding all the Notes need to referenced.--Catlemur (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ☒N I think all those that need a reference have one - the only exceptions are my clarification on who's included in Belligerents and the official name of Hamburg which I don't think is contentious. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Catlemur: I've added a paragraph on Military Developments; can you take a look. It would be helpful if you can either Support or Oppose the request for an A class so we can close off this long-running assessment. Thanks! Robinvp11 (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to support.--Catlemur (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref errors

  • Found using Ucucha/HarvErrors script & Citation Style 1 error messages; see also User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck.
  • Duffy 1995, p. 125. Harv error: link from CITEREFDuffy1995 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Parker 1997, p. 120. Harv error: link from CITEREFParker1997 doesn't point to any citation.
  • There are a total of 18 sources in the Sources section which are not cited in the text. These should be moved to a Further Reading section. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Robinvp11: I fixed your references for you. I think you need to learn how to do them correctly, so that other folks don't need to fix them. Cheers. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lingzhi.Random: Curiously, I fixed them only to discover you'd already done so. I didn't ask you to do that and if it annoys you, please feel free not to bother in future. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems I mistakenly assumed you had no idea how to fix them. Ucucha's script is invaluable in this regard. But it still requires a bit of attention. There was, for example, one source in the "Further reading" (which was then labeled "Bibliography") which was actually cited in the article text. It would have been easy to miss-- it was the only one without a Harv error warning in the middle of many that had them... This is a long article with many good sources. Good work taking it on. It takes courage to dive into the thick of something long and rather involved. That is admirable. Sorry if I was too quick to chide. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Palastwache[edit]

  • The demographic losses stated in the lead ("up to 60% of the population [...] in some areas", refering to Würtemberg) and in the "Human and financial cost of the war" section are not referenced by Outram 2002 who only mentions that "in Baden-Würtemberg only 57% of buildings survived the war" (p. 251). Outram cites the overall losses estimated by Günter Franz (1940) on page 248 but gives no numbers to extreme examples like Würtemberg.--Palastwache (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. The Outram reference should have been placed next to the sentence on Franz and I have clarified these figures using Parker. See what you think. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition: The Peace of Westphalia section lacks the mention of two key parts of the religious settlement of the war: The limitation of the "ius reformandi" for all Imperial estates except the Emperor and the "Normaljahr" 1624. With the limitation of the "ius reformandi", a ruler could still convert to Catholicism, Lutheranism, or now also Calvinism, but he could not (force-)convert his subjects anymore.--Palastwache (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complementary, the "Normaljahr" settlement determined the religion of an estate to the dominant religion in 1624 (a compromise between Catholics and Lutherans) and legalised all religious minorities present in 1624. Exception were the Oberpfalz and the Habsburg territories, where recatholization was acknowledged despite not completed in 1624.
  • Made some changes - let me know if the revised wording works for you. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Round 3, last remark before I give a support: The German theatre between 1639 and 1641 is entirely missing - currently, the transition is "Despite the death of Bernhard, over the next two years the Franco-Swedish alliance won a series of battles ..." which is not referenced (Clodfelter (2008) only refers to Second Breitenfeld) and factually wrong, Bernhard of Saxe-Weimar died 1639 but the next Franco-Swedish victory was Wolfenbüttel 1641. In 1640, the Swedes under Johan Banér were pushed back to the Weser, in 1641 he unsuccessfully attacked the Regensburg Reichstag. His death on the retreat caused a mutiny that was (according to the Austrian historian Lothar Höbelt) the last serious chance for the Imperials to defeat or rather buy-out the Swedes (then Torstensson appeared and saved the day). Especially Regensburg (the Emperor stayed there and risked captivity) and the mutiny could be noteworthy.
  • To the truce between the Dutch Republic and Spain in 1647: The given cause is "At this point, Olivares publicised secret discussions initiated by Mazarin in early 1646" - Olivares had already been overturned in 1643 and died in 1645. The sentence could be changed to "... the Spanish government publicised ..."--Palastwache (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, made some changes, see what you think. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great job! You have answered all questions I had :) Palastwache (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

Will take a look at this; I'm not very familiar with this time period. Hog Farm Talk 03:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • All the better :)
  • From a quick look, not all of the commanders and leaders are mentioned elsewhere in the article. I only looked at the list of Swedes, and Oxenstierna is only in the infobox
  • checkY Removed unused - Oxenstierna now mentioned
  • You use both Lennart Torstensson and Torstenson. Recommend picking the better variant and sticking with it
  • checkY Done
  • Structural origins mentions the Habsburgs without really explaining who they are
  • checkY I've expanded this, see what you think.
  • File:Spanish road (in red).png - What do the various colors on this map mean?
  • checkY Done
  • Link Philip Fabricius to Filip Fabricius
  • checkY Done
  • "Thurn established a new government, and the conflict expanded into Silesia" - This is a bit unclear as to when the military conflict itself actually started - was it with the Second Defenestration of Prague, or afterwards?
  • checkY Clarified wording
  • "this was helped when the Ottomans went to war with Poland in 1620, then Persia in 1623" - MOS:EGG issues. It really looks like the links to Poland and Persia are going to the nations, not the conflicts. Maybe include "with" in the piped links?
  • checkY Should be clearer now
  • I'm also concerned that the deaths denoted in the infobox aren't all mentioned in the prose - for instance, Spinola is marked as KIA, but this isn't mentioned
  • checkY Technically, Spinola died of fever in Italy, so easily resolved :)
  • "In the October 1619 Treaty of Munich" - link Treaty of Munich (1619)
  • checkY Done
  • A map specifically indicating where the Palatinate was located would be useful, as it seems to have been in a strategic location
  • ☒N If you look at a map of the Palatinate, you'll see the problem; it consisted of a bunch of widely scattered, non-contiguous territories and I think it would be more confusing than helpful
  • "John George of Saxony and the Calvinist George William of Brandenburg feared Ferdinand intended to reclaim former Catholic bishoprics currently held by Lutherans (see Map)" - So is that map showing only those bishoprics and all the relevant bishoprics? The caption is pretty vague
  • checkY I've removed "See Map" and clarified map caption
  • "Richelieu's policy was to 'arrest the course of Spanish progress', and 'protect her neighbours from Spanish oppression'" - Are these Richelieu's words, or that of a secondary source? I'd recommend in-text attribution as to who this is quoting
  • checkY Clarified
  • "under von Gronsfeld at Oldendorf in July" - Who is von Gronsfeld?
  • checkY Easier to remove him (not a major player) Robinvp11 (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkY Actually, now added him into the Infobox as he appears elsewhere as Bronckhorst-Gronsfeld. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the Phase II Section, hope to get back to this tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 04:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Iberian Union is mentioned in an image caption; it should probably be introduced in the text as well
  • checkY Done
  • The involvement chart needs an explicit source in the text, as not all of it is directly referred to in the article - such as Transylvania'a involvement in the 1640s, for instance
  • ☒N I didn't produce this so I don't know where it came from but I'm reluctant to remove something which clearly took someone a lot of work. I don't think it matters whether every piece of involvement is mentioned in the text, its simply a broad overview.
  • The breakdowns of casualties and strengths in the infobox don't all seem to be cited
  • checkY Done Robinvp11 (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pappenheim is either only mentioned in the infobox or appears in the body under another name
  • checkY Now done (killed at Lutzen)
  • Croatian cavalry is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the body
  • checkY Moved into FN (as explained, most commentators think these are included in Imperial forces) Robinvp11 (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the first pass, will make another one once these are resolved. Hog Farm Talk 02:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hog Farm Talk 04:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

As, after eight months, no consensus to promote seems to be forming, I am archiving this nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened per this discussion. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Ivo Herenčić[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): OakMapping (talk)

Ivo Herenčić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Ivo Herenčić was an Ustaša who orchestrated an unsuccessful assassination attempt on Alexander I of Yugoslavia in the interwar period. He committed various war crimes and worked in several surveillance departments of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) during World War II. One of the leaders of the withdrawal of the armed forces of the NDH, he was not able to negotiate passage into Austria but he himself escaped and was never apprehended.

This is my first ACR nom, so I might be overambitious but I believe the article meets A-class criteria. This article is certainly my best work so far and I would love to see it go through rigorous reviews. OakMapping (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • "was a general in the armed forces of the Independent State of Croatia (Nezavisna Država Hrvatska, NDH), a fascist puppet state, where he commanded a battalion of Ustaše Militia that committed many war crimes and atrocities on civilians in the NDH." 1. Could we have dates for this? 2. Optional: consider breaking this long sentence.
You don't need to say both "Where" and "in the NDH." Suggest deleting the former.
Done
  • " He was sent to the Herzegovina region". By whom?
    • It says that Pavelić sent him in the body of the article, I don't think that detail is important enough to be included in the lead
  • "feared by the people". Could you be a little more specific as to who "the people" were?
    • Unfortunately I no longer have access to the source I used for that but IIRC it wasn't more specific.
I don't think that it works to just say "the people". I don't see that it conveys any information if we don't actually know who is being referred to.
Changed it to you what you suggest later in the review.
  • "Economic-Business Higher School". 1. What does this mean? 2. Why the upper case initial letters?
    • It's my attempt at translating Ekonomsko-komercijalna visoka škola, I am not sure if visoka škola could be translated as college, I would like to hear another opinion on this. I removed upper case initial letters, added Croatian name, and replaced business with commerce because it's probably a better translation.
Maybe "after which he attended a business college". That works in UK English, I'm not so sure about US English.
Changed it to that.
  • "he entered a camp for members of the ultra-nationalist and fascist Ustaše organisation". What does this mean? He was interned? "camp" has a variety of meanings.
    • He wasn't interned, replaced entered with joined. Hopefully now it's more clear.
  • "Hetman". Perhaps an indication of its connotations?
    • Added a sentence explaining what hetman is, but he adopted it as a pseudonym
  • "he had been trained to throw in a training camp". Optional: avoid "trained ... training".
    • replaced "trained" with "taught how"
  • Per the second bullet of MOS:JOBTITLES most mentions of "king" should be 'King'.
    • done
  • "Bosnia and Herzegovina are dup linked. Check for other cases.
    • I don't think it is, it's linked in the lead and in the first instance in the body
  • "while participating in fighting in Bosnia and Herzegovina." Against whom?
    • the source doesn't say
  • "Herenčić was one of the UNS and RAVSIGUR officers whose atrocities made them very feared by the people." 1. Which people? 2. This seems to be in the wrong place, there has been no mention of Herenčić's involvement in any atrocities since he joined RAVSIGUR. If people were especially afraid of him, then ideally the reasons should be detailed; if they can't be, this still IMO needs rephrasing.
    • As I said above I no longer have access to the source I used for that. I found no examples of his involvement in atrocities since he joined RAVSIGUR. I see why it needs rephrasing but I don't know how to rephrase it, if you or anyone else has any suggestions for that I would be happy to hear them.
Mmm. How about 'Herenčić was one of the most feared UNS and RAVSIGUR officers because of the atrocities previously committed by units under his command'?
Sounds alright, changed it to that.
  • "HOS" is mentioned in the lead, but not the body.
    • It's mentioned as "Croatian Armed Forces", it's only mentioned once in the body so there's no need to use an abbreviation.
  • "should not advance any further". "advance" seems an inappropriate word.
    • I can't think of a better word, any suggestions?
'withdraw'?
changed to that, thanks for the suggestion
  • "Herenčić, together with Metikoš, Servatzy and Danijel Crljen met with Scott ... Herenčić, Metikoš, Servatzy and Crljen, representing the retreating NDH forces, met with Scott". Is this a duplication?
    • No, there were two meetings, I tried making it more clear.
  • Is there no more detail on his post-war life? Eg, is it known if he had children, or when his wife died, or what he did for a living?
    • Only when his wife died, I added that

A really nice article. I have seen worse nominated for FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a lot for the review, I addressed all your comments. @Gog the Mild:

Placeholder for PM[edit]

Definitely my area, OakMapping. Will take a look once you've addressed Gog's comments. Ping me at that point. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed all Gog's comments @Peacemaker67:
Will look at this over the coming weekend. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, have been a bit busy IRL, will look at this shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll jump in after you've dealt with Zawed's comments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Zawed[edit]

Lead

  • he completed secondary...: suggest: "he completed his secondary..."
    • Done

Education and early Ustaše activity

  • Structure-wise, I think this section could be broken into a short "Early life" section and a "Ustaše activity" section (beginning with the "In 1933..." sentence).
    • Done
  • During 1930 and 1931, he...: suggest "From 1930 to 1931, he..."
    • Done
  • While in Italy, he adopted pseudonym Hetman.[3] Hetman being a historical military title used in the Polish–Lithuanian state.[4]: suggest "hile in Italy, he adopted the pseudonym Hetman,[3] this being a historical military title used in the Polish–Lithuanian state.[4]
    • Done
  • ...using fake passports with names Emil Benedikt...: suggest "...using fake passports in the names of Emil Benedikt..."
    • Done
  • Anything on Herenčić's specific role in the assassination attempt of the King? Seems to me that Begović and Oreb took all the risks.
    • He was the leader of the plot but he didn't have any specific task in the assassination attempt.
  • just before the assassination attempt and just after it failed.: suggest "just before and after the assassination attempt." Seems redundant to mention that it failed, it is clear from the preceding paragraph that it did.
    • Done
  • 1st Ustaše Company; should this be listed in the infobox under commands?
    • Yes, added it.

World War II

  • ...Trieste on the same day, Ustašas traveled...: suggest "Trieste on the same day, the Ustašas traveled..."
  • June and early July 1941: you could drop the 1941 here as it should be clear to the reader that the events are still taking place in that year. Also, does this time period refer to the uprising itself or his involvement in it? From the following sentence, it seems he only became involved in mid-July? If that refers to something different, perhaps "Main Ustaša Headquarters then sent..." to imply that the mid-July event is separate from the uprising.
  • Main Ustaša Headquarters sent...: suggest "The Main Ustaša Headquarters sent..."
  • Ustaše Mostar Battalion; should this be listed in the infobox under commands?
  • participating in fighting in Bosnia and Herzegovina.: who would he have been fighting against here?
  • In April 1941, Herenčić was appointed as a commissioner in RAVSIGUR, a supervisory department in the Ministry of Internal Affairs.: chronologically, this is a little out of place here; can it be worked into the first part of the previous paragraph? It goes towards explaining a little what he was doing between April and June 1941.
  • Herenčić was appointed its leader...: leader of the Chief Surveillance Department or of the UNS?
  • General Ivan Prpić, as he feared Prpić might reveal...: suggest "General Ivan Prpić, who he feared might reveal..."

Post-war life and death

  • Generally, it is not necessary to link countries (Argentina) unless it is a historical state that no longer exists.

Personal life

  • This is a short section. I suggest combining it with the Post-war section by mentioning that he and his wife [name/date of marriage details] went to Argentina. I also note the inconsistency in language to describe the move to Argentina - in the Post-war life section, he "traveled", i.e. no urgency/danger involved whereas in the Personal life section, this is described as "fled", i.e. some urgency/danger involved. These are inconsistent with each other.

That's it for me. For a first attempt at A-class, this is pretty good, the issues identified are mainly a few grammatical stuff that may not be immediately obvious to a person for whom English may be a second language, which I think may be the case here? (apologies if not). Zawed (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @OakMapping: just a ping to check you have seen this? Zawed (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have but I've been quite busy irl so I'll address your comments one day during this week when I find time. Thanks a lot for the review and also yes, English is my second language. OakMapping (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OakMapping ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Blažeković needs a page range; as does Rupić & Aljinović.
  • Begić needs an OCLC. (462179134)
  • Geiger likewise. (815108185) And several others.
  • Three works lack publisher locations.
  • "He was brought back to Zagreb by RAVSIGUR in the spring of 1944 when he was tasked with uncovering the Lorković–Vokić plot against the NDH government." is too close to the original, could you paraphrase further.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that OakMapping hasn't edited since 18 February and only three times since 1 February. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say if there isn't any action by 18 March, this should be archived. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I agree. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be an absence of consensus to promote after a reasonable period, and so I am archiving. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Nikephoros III Botaneiates[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Nikephoros III Botaneiates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is part of my ongoing work to improve the articles of Roman and Byzantine emperors, and I believe it meets the standards. I'm hoping to get this one to FA later on, since for once I didn't have to fight tooth and nail for every word. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 09:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Inconsistent mention of publisher, publisher location, ISBN/OCLCs.
     Fixed as best I can.
  • Linking part of "Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library" seems less than helpful.
  •  Fixed
  • I am a little surprised to see sources from 1836, 1839 and 1844 used. Are these really needed? If so, why?
    In this case, no. I have removed them. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although most historians focus on John Doukas, rather than Nikephoros, limiting the depth of analysis." Which of the three cites supporting this give which parts of this information? Or is it OR and the cites are your examples?
    Seems I misunderstood the sources, or some other mixup occured; they were talking about his reign in general; I've moved it to the end of his reign section and explained in better detail.
  • "1002 – 1081". Why a spaced dash?
  •  Fixed
  • What makes "Property dispute between Lavra & Theodoros tou Aichmalotou was settled by Nikephoros Botaneiates" a reliable source?
    It is part of the Prosopography of the Byzantine World project (now linked), a collaboration of many academics. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at these thoughts and then I'll dig in properly. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Ready for the second round. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vami[edit]

Reserving place for review. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first thing I notice about this article is its massive lead. Heraclius, another GA and a far more consequential emperor, has a lead maybe the third the size of this one.

Comments by PM[edit]

Good to see another one of these Byzantine emperors nominated at ACR. A few comments:

Lead
  • agree that the lead seems bloated. Three large (one extra large) paras seems excessive based on the size of the article.
  • drop the comma from "governors of Trebizond and Antioch, respectively"
  • "who persuaded them to support Alexios" persuaded who?
  • suggest "where he abdicated and became a monk. He died later that year."
  • Byzantine Senate is duplinked in the lead and body
Body
  • "his reproduction of Byzantine Emperor Michael VII Doukas'" we already know he was emperor
  • in general, I think it is unnecessary to preface emperors' names with "Byzantine Emperor" when first introduced, certainly "Byzantine" isn't needed
  • where was the Battle of Zygos Pass fought? In general terms, I assume modern-day northern Bulgaria? Was this a Byzantine province?
  • why initial capital for "Paroikoi"?
  • suggest "Nikephoros sent Michael the spatharokandidatos to inquire into the case. He then ruled that, based upon a chrysobull issued by Basil II which..."

Down to "Later military career". More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • is there a contemporary link for Byzantine Armenia and Cilicia?
  • Roussel de Bailleul at second and subsequent mentions
  • "The military acumen and family renown of Nikephoros (III)" I think it is obvious you are referring to the subject of the article here, not the just mentioned general
  • Nikephoros Bryennios the Elder is duplinked
  • full stop after "defected to the side of Nikephoros"
  • "The first revolt was that of Nikephoros Bryennios" the Elder?
  • "who rebelled in Dyrrhachium"
  • link for Nicomedia?
  • in general, the use of the Greek words without any inline explanation doesn't help the reader. Parenthetical explanation per hypertimos may be warranted?
  • Nikeophoros→Nikephoros
  • "who persuaded them to support Alexios" who is "them"?
  • "While the reforms of Nikephoros arewere quite minor"

That's all I have. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Iazyges, just checking you've seen this. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Thanks for the ping (and the review), I had not; I haven't been active as much due to the busy season of Accounting. I'll get round to this as soon as I finish my GAN review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Iazyges ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Sorry, forgot I still had this open. I expect to be busy for at least another month, so it may be best to close this in the meantime. I appreciate all the reviews, and I'll work to fix the comments left here when I do have the time. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose by Constantine[edit]

Will review over the next few days. Constantine ✍ 19:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • Agree that the lede is far too large. You can easily shorten it by removing too much detail like in which they suffered eleven days of harassment before finally reaching the Byzantine city of Adrianople, Eudokia, Patriarch John VIII of Constantinople, and the Byzantine Senate agreed that their top priority was the defense of the empire and that they needed an emperor to lead troops to repel the Turks or who was nearby in Damalis in Anatolia, and sent messengers to him across the Bosphorus. The details should be dealt with in the body of the article.
  • he was made doux of Thessalonica -> Nikephoros was made doux...
  • Monastery of Peribleptus, Nikephoros Bryennius please be consistent in using either transliterated or Latinized names. In this case it would be Peribleptos and Bryennios.
Historiography and sources
  • I think the section should be placed at the end of the article. For a non-expert, it might be off-putting due to its length and difficult to follow as it refers to several events without any context (e.g. Manzikert or the Norman invasions). This effectively requires the reader to know the events before even beginning to read the article. The lede is IMO no substitute for this.
  • counters the narrative of Byzantine historian Michael Psellos's Chronographia, the only other contemporary source it would be good to briefly summarize Psellos' view as well here, or how it differs from Attaleiates.
  • dedicates several pages -> devotes several pages
  • Nikephoros's last years in power Nikephotos was in power for three years only, so what is meant here?
  • Better don't use the term 'Continuatus' as this will only confuse readers. Call it 'the Continuator of Skylitzes's work' or something analogous. And then of course a formulation like his Continuatus...whom he is known to have favore is incorrect; it was the Continuatus of Skylitzes', but was not necessarily written by him, so 'he/him' here, referring to Skylitzes, is misleading.
  • I would recommend dealing with Anna Komnene and Nikephoros Bryennios the Younger one after the other, as they are mutually related in their background and biases.
  • The entire section relies heavily on Maynard's article, which is almost the only work cited, but I see statements here that are not in Maynard's article, e.g. as a foreigner, he was removed from the court politics of the Byzantine Empire, and thus provides a fair and objective view of Nikephoros or are therefore quite objective in their treatment of Nikephoros, lacking political intrigue related to him, or while he provides a contemporary source from the view of the Byzantine nobles, he is far from objective in his review of events etc. While some of these judgements are semi-plausible, the generalizations here are dubious: no historical source lacks bias. Holding up Attaleiates, who as mentioned has very good reasons to be favourable to his patron Nikephoros, as less biased than Psellos, is nonsense. They are differently biased, but that's it. The entire section therefore smacks of WP:OR.

Will continue with the rest of the article soon. Constantine ✍ 14:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and family
  • from the Anatolic Theme I think it would be useful to identify and place the Anatolic Theme geographically (e.g. "a large province covering western central Anatolia" or similar).
  • Attaleiates is the only source which gives this information. this is redundant. You have already mentioned that this is according to Attaleiates.
  • Botaniati family was related to Byzantine Emperor Nicephorus II Phocas and the Phocas family what I said above about Latinizations: Botaneiates, Nikephoros II Phokas, and Phokas.
Early career
  • for his actions after the Battle of Zygos Pass in 1053 reiterate here that this was during the Pecheneg revolt, to connect this to the previous section, and eliminate the close repetition of 'Pecheneg' in Pecheneg forces during the Pecheneg revolt.
  • it fits comfortably 'this report fits comfortably'
  • After the Dynatoi were humiliated who were the Dynatoi? Also, the word does not need capitalization.
  • which is mentioned by Skylitzes, Psellos, and Attaleiates redundant.
  • At Constantinople, the Battle of Petroe took place Petroe is about 50km from Constantinople and in a different continent...
  • reportedly one of the bloodiest battles the Byzantines engaged in during a civil war. according to whom?
  • the first time a general had held the throne since the death of Emperor Basil II in 1025 By implication, Basil II was a general? Basil was the legitimate emperor, even if he was a warrior-emperor. If you want a comparison, this should be made with the usurping general-emperors Nikephoros II and John Tzimiskes...
  • settle complaints in the theme which theme? 'in the local theme' or 'in the province' suffices, but do not assume the readers know the administrative structure of the empire. Alternatively, change doux of Thessalonica to 'doux (governor) of the Theme of Thessalonica'.
  • on the Byzantine government 'Byzantine' is redundant here. Also, 'Byzantine Emperor' is often used, but is really not needed. It is clear we are talking about Byzantines most of the time, only when non-Byzantines are concerned, this should be clarified.
  • The first complaint was a dispute centered on the Byzantine government's confiscation...which Nikephoros reasserted the level of detail here is IMO unwarranted, and contravenes WP:SS. These are the disputes we know of, because the relevant documents have survived as they concern Athonite monasteries, so a full listing of them is misleading (it strongly implies that the list is exhaustive). I strongly recommend moving them to a footnote, and at the very least noting that these are the judgments we know of, and that they are indicative.
  • In the fall of 1064, the Oghuz Turks rename to 'Uzes' as in the primary sources and link Uzes (people)
Later military career
  • Maynard (again, this article's most frequently cited source) writes that "Nicephorus Botaniates was sent to Cyprus to become its Doux from 1065-1067". This is not mentioned anywhere. Why? Instead, 1065 is the date given for his assuming the government of Antioch in the article, and 1067 as the date he was relieved of command. This contradicts Maynard, who is the sole source for this entire section.
  • The Seljuk Turks are not mentioned during his governorship in Antioch, although they definitely were present in the area (and mentioned by Maynard).
  • There is a very heavy reliance directly on Attaleiates in Kaldellis' edition. While obviously the main source, primary sources should be avoided unless they are the only detailed source, or the modern secondary literature effectively rehashes them. Even more so when we know that Attaleiates was biased in favour of Botaneiates. There exist some excellent secondary sources for the period (Angold's The Byzantine Empire, 1025-1204: A Political History among the most commonly used, Cheynet's Pouvoir et contestations, and Kaldellis' own Streams of Gold, which is listed but cited only once!).
  • Conversely, Norwich should not be used. He is a very good and entertaining writer, and an excellent introduction into Byzantine history, but not really a WP:RS.
  • declared him kouropalates and governor of the Anatolic Theme the latter part is not in Maynard, who writes that "After the Battle of Zompos Bridge, Nicephorus was appointed Doux of Anatolikon from 1074 until his revolt in 1077". In contrast, there is information from Maynard that is missing without obvious explanation: "Botaniates was once again appointed as Doux of Opsikion after he concluded his tenure as Doux of Hellas and Peloponnese sometime before 1074", i.e. before his participation in the campaign against Roussel.
  • A month later, in November 1077, the general Nikephoros Bryennios the Elder raised his own revolt against Michael clarify that this was in the western Balkans.
  • No mention of the attempt of Roussel to join Botaneiates' revolt, or the defection of Melissenos and Palaiologos, or the details of Botaneiates' revolt, e.g. the march on Nicaea, the role of the Seljuks, etc. This is hugely important because it effectively completed the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia, after all Nicaea was their first capital there.

I am stopping here. The article has a lot of minor weaknesses that can easily be rectified, but I've hit on too many omissions and discrepancies with the sources. I worry that the more I dig, the more I find, especially in terms of sources and their use. I am definitely voting to oppose at this time. The article needs to be thoroughly reworked, using further reliable secondary sources. There is no problem with relying heavily on Maynard, but if so, then there should be no gaps, and there should be no OR stuff using Maynard as a source but not actually there. Constantine ✍ 17:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article promoted by Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Thirty Years' War[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Robinvp11 (talk)

Thirty Years' War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review; it was rejected for GA status in 2008 due to lack of adequate Sources. This issue has now been addressed, while the article itself has been rewritten from the ground up. I believe it now meets the criteria. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe
  • The lead needs to be dramatically shortened to bring into compliance with MOS:LEAD; it's seven paragraphs but supposed to be no longer than four. (t · c) buidhe 03:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • checkY Done
  • For the lead image, I think it would be most helpful to see a map of the countries that participated in the war, rather than a woodcut that not all readers will be able to see clearly at infobox size. (t · c) buidhe 04:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by CPA[edit]

Since this article is about Protestant vs Catholic countries in the 17th century we don't know which calendar is used in this article. I assume New Style but Old Style should also be included in the dates. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • ☒N With very specific exceptions, historians use New Style, a standard adopted throughout Wikipedia and in this article. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Robinvp11: MOS:OSNS disagrees with this. Per this list and article Denmark-Norway adopted the New Style in 1700, Sweden adopted this in 1753, and some parts of the Dutch Republic used it until 1701. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above; I have not disputed the fact certain states adopted NS later than others. However, it is historical convention to use NS unless absolutely necessary to avoid confusion eg when comparing dates (see the article I have edited on the Glorious Revolution). If you read any of the Sources provided, they all follow this without exception, as do the vast majority of Wikipedia articles. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Catlemur[edit]

  • I wrote a separate article on how and why Wallenstein was assassinated, which can be found here: Eger Bloodbath. I suppose you can wikilink it. From my understanding the town was called Eger at the time of the war.
  • checkY Added the link; where there are conflicting names, I've used that provided by the relevant Wikipedia article which in this case is Cheb, not Eger.
  • As the article already mentions the Peace of Westphalia did not completely settle the conflict. There were still disagreements on whether the normative year imposed by the treaty took precedence over other treaties in regard to church properties. This nearly reignited the conflict in what came to be known as the Düsseldorf Cow War.
  • ☒N I think this point is sufficiently made already.
  • A translation needs to be provided for the titles of the sources that are not in English.
  • checkY Done
  • There is no section dedicated to how the war was actually fought. Not a single mention of the Tercio or Hakkapeliitta and very little mention what tactics were employed, what the soldiers were equipped with or what made commanders like Wallenstein stand out in the field.
  • ☒N This is about the Causes, Course and Outcome of the war, not 17th century tactics and structure - a huge topic in itself and worthy of its own article. If people want to learn more about Wallenstein, there's a link to his article. There are several references to the impact of recruitment and forcing soldiers to live off the land, which are more relevant here than cavalry tactics.
  • Can you mention Kipper und Wipper in the Human and financial cost of the war section?
  • checkY Done
  • checkY I've reduced the amount of space devoted to the witchcraft trials and expanded this to include cultural impact - see what you think.
  • "Markó 2000, p. ?." - What does the question mark mean here?
  • checkY Reference supplied by a previous editor, I couldn't find the page number and have now removed it.
  • From my understanding all the Notes need to referenced.--Catlemur (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ☒N I think all those that need a reference have one - the only exceptions are my clarification on who's included in Belligerents and the official name of Hamburg which I don't think is contentious. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Catlemur: I've added a paragraph on Military Developments; can you take a look. It would be helpful if you can either Support or Oppose the request for an A class so we can close off this long-running assessment. Thanks! Robinvp11 (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to support.--Catlemur (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref errors

  • Found using Ucucha/HarvErrors script & Citation Style 1 error messages; see also User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck.
  • Duffy 1995, p. 125. Harv error: link from CITEREFDuffy1995 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Parker 1997, p. 120. Harv error: link from CITEREFParker1997 doesn't point to any citation.
  • There are a total of 18 sources in the Sources section which are not cited in the text. These should be moved to a Further Reading section. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Robinvp11: I fixed your references for you. I think you need to learn how to do them correctly, so that other folks don't need to fix them. Cheers. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lingzhi.Random: Curiously, I fixed them only to discover you'd already done so. I didn't ask you to do that and if it annoys you, please feel free not to bother in future. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems I mistakenly assumed you had no idea how to fix them. Ucucha's script is invaluable in this regard. But it still requires a bit of attention. There was, for example, one source in the "Further reading" (which was then labeled "Bibliography") which was actually cited in the article text. It would have been easy to miss-- it was the only one without a Harv error warning in the middle of many that had them... This is a long article with many good sources. Good work taking it on. It takes courage to dive into the thick of something long and rather involved. That is admirable. Sorry if I was too quick to chide. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Palastwache[edit]

  • The demographic losses stated in the lead ("up to 60% of the population [...] in some areas", refering to Würtemberg) and in the "Human and financial cost of the war" section are not referenced by Outram 2002 who only mentions that "in Baden-Würtemberg only 57% of buildings survived the war" (p. 251). Outram cites the overall losses estimated by Günter Franz (1940) on page 248 but gives no numbers to extreme examples like Würtemberg.--Palastwache (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. The Outram reference should have been placed next to the sentence on Franz and I have clarified these figures using Parker. See what you think. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition: The Peace of Westphalia section lacks the mention of two key parts of the religious settlement of the war: The limitation of the "ius reformandi" for all Imperial estates except the Emperor and the "Normaljahr" 1624. With the limitation of the "ius reformandi", a ruler could still convert to Catholicism, Lutheranism, or now also Calvinism, but he could not (force-)convert his subjects anymore.--Palastwache (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complementary, the "Normaljahr" settlement determined the religion of an estate to the dominant religion in 1624 (a compromise between Catholics and Lutherans) and legalised all religious minorities present in 1624. Exception were the Oberpfalz and the Habsburg territories, where recatholization was acknowledged despite not completed in 1624.
  • Made some changes - let me know if the revised wording works for you. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Round 3, last remark before I give a support: The German theatre between 1639 and 1641 is entirely missing - currently, the transition is "Despite the death of Bernhard, over the next two years the Franco-Swedish alliance won a series of battles ..." which is not referenced (Clodfelter (2008) only refers to Second Breitenfeld) and factually wrong, Bernhard of Saxe-Weimar died 1639 but the next Franco-Swedish victory was Wolfenbüttel 1641. In 1640, the Swedes under Johan Banér were pushed back to the Weser, in 1641 he unsuccessfully attacked the Regensburg Reichstag. His death on the retreat caused a mutiny that was (according to the Austrian historian Lothar Höbelt) the last serious chance for the Imperials to defeat or rather buy-out the Swedes (then Torstensson appeared and saved the day). Especially Regensburg (the Emperor stayed there and risked captivity) and the mutiny could be noteworthy.
  • To the truce between the Dutch Republic and Spain in 1647: The given cause is "At this point, Olivares publicised secret discussions initiated by Mazarin in early 1646" - Olivares had already been overturned in 1643 and died in 1645. The sentence could be changed to "... the Spanish government publicised ..."--Palastwache (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, made some changes, see what you think. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great job! You have answered all questions I had :) Palastwache (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

Will take a look at this; I'm not very familiar with this time period. Hog Farm Talk 03:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • All the better :)
  • From a quick look, not all of the commanders and leaders are mentioned elsewhere in the article. I only looked at the list of Swedes, and Oxenstierna is only in the infobox
  • checkY Removed unused - Oxenstierna now mentioned
  • You use both Lennart Torstensson and Torstenson. Recommend picking the better variant and sticking with it
  • checkY Done
  • Structural origins mentions the Habsburgs without really explaining who they are
  • checkY I've expanded this, see what you think.
  • File:Spanish road (in red).png - What do the various colors on this map mean?
  • checkY Done
  • Link Philip Fabricius to Filip Fabricius
  • checkY Done
  • "Thurn established a new government, and the conflict expanded into Silesia" - This is a bit unclear as to when the military conflict itself actually started - was it with the Second Defenestration of Prague, or afterwards?
  • checkY Clarified wording
  • "this was helped when the Ottomans went to war with Poland in 1620, then Persia in 1623" - MOS:EGG issues. It really looks like the links to Poland and Persia are going to the nations, not the conflicts. Maybe include "with" in the piped links?
  • checkY Should be clearer now
  • I'm also concerned that the deaths denoted in the infobox aren't all mentioned in the prose - for instance, Spinola is marked as KIA, but this isn't mentioned
  • checkY Technically, Spinola died of fever in Italy, so easily resolved :)
  • "In the October 1619 Treaty of Munich" - link Treaty of Munich (1619)
  • checkY Done
  • A map specifically indicating where the Palatinate was located would be useful, as it seems to have been in a strategic location
  • ☒N If you look at a map of the Palatinate, you'll see the problem; it consisted of a bunch of widely scattered, non-contiguous territories and I think it would be more confusing than helpful
  • "John George of Saxony and the Calvinist George William of Brandenburg feared Ferdinand intended to reclaim former Catholic bishoprics currently held by Lutherans (see Map)" - So is that map showing only those bishoprics and all the relevant bishoprics? The caption is pretty vague
  • checkY I've removed "See Map" and clarified map caption
  • "Richelieu's policy was to 'arrest the course of Spanish progress', and 'protect her neighbours from Spanish oppression'" - Are these Richelieu's words, or that of a secondary source? I'd recommend in-text attribution as to who this is quoting
  • checkY Clarified
  • "under von Gronsfeld at Oldendorf in July" - Who is von Gronsfeld?
  • checkY Easier to remove him (not a major player) Robinvp11 (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkY Actually, now added him into the Infobox as he appears elsewhere as Bronckhorst-Gronsfeld. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the Phase II Section, hope to get back to this tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 04:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Iberian Union is mentioned in an image caption; it should probably be introduced in the text as well
  • checkY Done
  • The involvement chart needs an explicit source in the text, as not all of it is directly referred to in the article - such as Transylvania'a involvement in the 1640s, for instance
  • ☒N I didn't produce this so I don't know where it came from but I'm reluctant to remove something which clearly took someone a lot of work. I don't think it matters whether every piece of involvement is mentioned in the text, its simply a broad overview.
  • The breakdowns of casualties and strengths in the infobox don't all seem to be cited
  • checkY Done Robinvp11 (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pappenheim is either only mentioned in the infobox or appears in the body under another name
  • checkY Now done (killed at Lutzen)
  • Croatian cavalry is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the body
  • checkY Moved into FN (as explained, most commentators think these are included in Imperial forces) Robinvp11 (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the first pass, will make another one once these are resolved. Hog Farm Talk 02:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hog Farm Talk 04:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

As, after eight months, no consensus to promote seems to be forming, I am archiving this nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened per this discussion. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Anti-Fascist Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk)

Anti-Fascist Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it is close to complying with A-class criteria and would like to receive feedback allowing further improvements to the article. Thanks Tomobe03 (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I reviewed this at GA and am satisfied it meets A-class standards. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA[edit]

  • There are some MOS:SANDWICH issues in the First session section. Please remove this issues. Cherers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Buidhe[edit]

I did a general copyedit of the article. Hopefully I have not accidentally introduced any Americanisms.

  • "It lost three Croatian Peasant Party (HSS) ministers including the party's leader and the deputy prime minister Vladko Maček, who resigned and stayed in the country. The HSS thus split and lost influence." Does the who clause apply just to Macek or all three? Also, why is the HSS split relevant to the Avnoj? If the point of these sentences is to highlight the narrow basis and weak legitimacy of the exile government, it's enough just to say that the 3 HSS and 1 Muslim minister resigned.
  • "In combination with fear of communism, this led him to ignore information about Chetnik collaboration with the Axis powers, and appoint their leader Draža Mihailović the Minister of the Army, Navy and Air Forces." This sentence needs to be rewritten as I'm not clear what it's trying to say.

(t · c) buidhe 10:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vami[edit]

Reserving a spot. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

With Tomobe having gone inactive for six weeks, this is being closed until they become active again - There is no prejudice against re-nomination and any editor may renominate this one at any time. Hog Farm Talk 17:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Indy beetle (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

« Return to A-Class review list

Second Battle of Kharkov[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Buidhe (talk)

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

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because for months it has been tagged with a banner indicating excessive reliance on primary sources, in this case memoirs by participants. The previous review back in 2006 is pretty skimpy by today's standards. It is listed as GA too so may need GAR as well. (t · c) buidhe 04:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist - There are a number of spots in here that are primary sources that really shouldn't be for a-class. Hog Farm Talk 13:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't see any over-reliance on primary sources. Two of the sources are memoirs, but these are acceptable within the strictures of WP:PRIMARY. No indication that the use is excessive. Removed the tag. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for removing the tag now that there actually is a discussion. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable. I wouldn't normally consider memoirs to be primary, as they were written years after the events concerned. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think memoirs are impermissible. They can be quite useful, but they must also be checked against academic or nonbiased sources. The German generals' memoirs I think have been shown to have glossed over some pretty terrible and reputationally inconvenient things, and it's quite possible the Soviets did so as well. What memoirs are best for is telling us how that person felt or thought about something, though that's not always gospel. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the issue here is that memoirs are cited extensively, on their own, and for a lot more info than what individuals were thinking about events. Is it unreasonable to expect an independent source for "By 14 May the Red Army had made impressive gains, but several Soviet divisions were so depleted that they were withdrawn and Soviet tank reserves were needed to defeat the German counter-attacks; German losses were estimated to be minimal, with only 35–70 tanks believed to have been knocked out in the 3rd and 23rd Panzer divisions." Wouldn't a historian want to check German loss records? (t · c) buidhe 02:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would tend to agree that casualty claims best come from outside sources, and where this is not possible should be attributed in-text. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no blanket ban on participant histories, in fact such a ban would be contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia. They are very useful for a range of material, including the opinions of the participants about what happened. They are ok for unit movements etc, but reliable secondary sources should be used for anything controversial or likely to be challenged, like casualty figures, the success (or otherwise) of particular attacks, and overall assessments of a campaign or battle in Wiki voice. The inline tags in the ref section are inappropriate, they should only be used inline in the body of the article where the material they support is controversial or likely to be challenged. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Having said that, the article should be primarily based on Glantz, Hayward, the German multi-volume series, and similar academic sources, there are too many citations to memoirs being used for material that should be cited to secondary sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

No consensus to promote at this time - Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Rhodesian mission in Lisbon[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk)

Rhodesian mission in Lisbon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it was just delisted from Featured Status here. The article relies too much on primary sources such as minutes from the British House of Lords and Ian Smith's memoirs, as well as a self-published book by JRT Wood. Newer scholarship, such as Josiah Brownell's Struggles for Self-Determination: The Denial of Reactionary Statehood in Africa exists, but has not been fully integrated into the article. Concerns about POV language, SYNTH, and editorialising prose were also raised in the FAR. Lastly, it's worth noting that when this article originally passed A-class in 2012 it was under the title of Lisbon Appointment. The newer title expanded the scope of the article, but the diplomatic mission's history is hardly covered beyond its creation. In short, it's compliance with A1 and A2 of the A-Class criteria is doubtful. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Demote per my comments in the FARC: in short, that the article does not fully cover its topic, the existing material is not neutral, and it is reliant on at times unreliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per the FAR (t · c) buidhe 13:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC) Inidentally, there is a similar delist nomination for Ho Chi Minh trail below that needs more input. (t · c) buidhe 15:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per the FAR. Hog Farm Talk 20:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/2022/Failed&oldid=1122646071"