Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Instructions

Requesting a review

To request the first A-Class review of an article:

1. Please double-check the MILHIST A-class criteria and ensure that the article meets most or all of the five (a good way of ensuring this is to put the article through a good article nomination or a peer review beforehand, although this is not mandatory).
2. If there has been a previous A-Class nomination of the article, before re-nominating the article the old nomination page must be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article/archive1 to make way for the new nomination page.
3. Add A-Class=current to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (e.g. immediately after the class= or list= field).
4. From there, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears in the template (below the "Additional information" section header). This will open a page pre-formatted for the discussion of the status of the article.
5. List your reason for nominating the article in the appropriate place, and save the page.
6. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below.
7. Refresh the article's talk page's cache by following these steps. (This is so that the article's talk page "knows" that the A-class review page has actually been created. It can also be accomplished in the 2010 wikitext editor by opening the page in edit mode and then clicking "save" without changing anything, i.e. making a "null edit". )
8. Consider reviewing another nominated article (or several) to help with any backlog (note: this is not mandatory, but the process does not work unless people are prepared to review. A good rule of thumb is that each nominator should try to review at least three other nominations as that is, in effect, what each nominator is asking for themselves. This should not be construed to imply QPQ).

Restrictions

1. An article may be nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination or because it was demoted and is now ready for re-appraisal. There is no limit on how quickly renominations of failed articles may be made; it is perfectly acceptable to renominate as soon as the outstanding objections from the previous nomination have been satisfied.
2. There are no formal limits to how many articles a single editor can nominate at any one time; however, editors are encouraged to be mindful not to overwhelm the system. A general rule of thumb is no more than three articles per nominator at one time, although it is not a hard-and-fast rule and editors should use their judgement in this regard.
3. An article may not be nominated for an A-Class review and be a Featured article candidate, undergoing a Peer Review, or have a Good article nomination at the same time.

Commenting

The Milhist A-Class standard is deliberately set high, very close to featured article quality. Reviewers should therefore satisfy themselves that the article meets all of the A-Class criteria before supporting a nomination. If needed, a FAQ page is available. As with featured articles, any objections must be "actionable"; that is, capable of rectification.

If you are intending to review an article but not yet ready to post your comments, it is suggested that you add a placeholder comment. This lets other editors know that a review is in progress. This could be done by creating a comment or header such as "Reviewing by Username" followed by your signature. This would be added below the last text on the review page. When you are ready to add comments to the review, strike out the placeholder comment and add your review. For instance, strike out "reviewing" and replace it with "comments" eg:

Comments Reviewing by Username

Add your comments after the heading you have created. Once comments have been addressed by the nominator you may choose to support or oppose the nomination's promotion to A-class by changing the heading:

Support / Oppose Comments reviewing by Username

If you wish to abstain from either decision, you may indicate that your comments have been addressed or not addressed. For instance:

Comments Reviewing by Username addressed / not addressed

This makes it easy for the nominator and closer to identify the status of your review. You may also wish to add a closing statement at the end of your comments. When a nominator addresses a comment, this can be marked as {{done}} or {{resolved}}, or in some other way. This makes it easy to keep track of progress, although it is not mandatory.

Requesting a review to be closed

A nominator may request the review be closed at any time if they wish to withdraw it. This can be done by listing the review at ACRs for closure, or by pinging an uninvolved co-ord. For a review to be closed successfully, however, please ensure that it has been open a minimum of five days, that all reviewers have finalised their reviews and that the review has a minimum of at least three supports, a source review and an image review. The source review should focus on whether the sources used in the article are reliable and of high quality, and in the case of a first-time nominator, spot-checking should also be conducted to confirm that the citations support the content. Once you believe you have addressed any review comments, you may need to contact some of the reviewers to confirm if you have satisfied their concerns.

After A-Class

You may wish to consider taking your article to featured article candidates for review. Before doing so, make sure you have addressed any suggestions that might have been made during the A-class review, that were not considered mandatory for promotion to A-class. It can pay to ask the A-class reviewers to help prepare your article, or you may consider sending it to peer review or to the Guild of Copy Editors for a final copy edit.

Demotion

If an editor feels that any current A-class article no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be considered for demotion (i.e. it needs a re-appraisal) please leave a message for the project coordinators, who will be happy to help.

A-Class review/reappraisal closure instructions for coordinators
	A-Class review		A-Class reappraisal
Closure takes place after minimum of five days	Pass • at least 3 comprehensive supports and • no outstanding criteria-based objections	Fail • less than 3 comprehensive supports or • outstanding criteria-based objections or • no consensus	Keep • clear consensus to keep or • no consensus	Demote • clear consensus to demote
{{WPMILHIST}} on article talk page	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=pass	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=fail	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=kept	• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=demoted • Reassess article and record new class
The MilHistBot will take care of the details. For detailed advice and manual procedure instructions see the full Academy course.

Current reviews

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

USS Varuna (1861)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

USS Varuna (1861) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My first nomination here since I nominated CSS General Earl Van Dorn back in May. Varuna was being constructed as a merchant ship when the US military bought the unfinished vessel for use on the blockade during the war. At the Battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philip, Varuna got ahead of the other Union ships and was involved in a bloody fight with Governor Moore, a gunboat operated by the state of Louisiana. Governor Moore rammed Varuna twice, and a third blow from another Confederate vessel (sources disagree as to which one) was enough to sink her. Clive Cussler found her remains in the 1980s, by then mostly under the riverbank. Hog Farm _Talk 03:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

AN/APS-20

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Simongraham (talk)

AN/APS-20 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel both that it meets the criteria and the topic of radars have insufficient coverage in the encyclopedia. The article passed a GA review some time ago so hopefully it is now ready for promotion. simongraham (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Köse Dağ

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): AirshipJungleman29 (talk)

Battle of Köse Dağ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Although I've taken various MILHIST articles to GA and FA, this is my first A-class nomination. The Battle of Köse Dağ was a decisive event for the Middle East, marking the end of real Seljuk power and another feather in the cap of the Mongol war machine. One of the great powers of the Mediterranean was overpowered on its own territory by an army half its size operating 4,500km away from its homeland. Quite an achievement, by any measure. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

HF

Welcome to ACR! I'm not very familiar with this subject matter, but I'll take a look at this. Hog Farm _Talk 02:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• "For most of the first day of fighting," - I'm not sure about "first day of fighting"; this is usually used for multi-day battles like Gettysburg, but this is a single day battle
• "When the sun rose on the second day of battle, the Mongols suspected that the deserted enemy camp was a trap before realising their enemy had indeed fled; their delay in advancing cost them any chance of capturing Kaykhusraw" - are the RS really considering this to be a true second day of the battle? At least for the 19th-century warfare that I'm familiar with, this would generally be considered a pursuit phase rather than a true second day of the battle
• It's not entirely clear to me - did the Mongols attempt to pursue after determing the camp wasn't a trap but just couldn't catch up to the retreating foe, or were the armies of Rum so far gone that they didn't pursue?
  • I'll address these together Hog Farm—one source does consider it a second day (May 2016: "on the second day of the battle") but the others are neutral, so I've adjusted the prose. No source provides clarification for the third point, sadly. Thanks for the comments! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

This looks like it's in pretty good shape to me. Hog Farm _Talk 03:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Supporting Hog Farm _Talk 20:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

I'll have a look too. AJ, is the plan to move this on to FAC? If so would you 1. like me to pre-emptively review this more or less against the FAC criteria and/or 2. do a pre-FAC copy edit as I go. Both are entirely optional. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, an FAC is probable, so both would be welcomed! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Wah ha ha ha haa! The copy editors of the Apocalypse are sharpening their claws. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• "File:Sultanate of Rûm.svg" needs the HQ RS from which it is drawn specifying.
  • I will have a sniff about.
• "were later formally annexed by the Mongol Ilkhanate." Is it possible to give the actual year?
  • It was over a period of fifty-odd year, so sadly not.

I am not sure one can "formally annex" somewhere over a fifty year period. Maybe 'taken over' or similar?

• "to confront the invasion near Köse Dağ Mountain on 26 June". Of what yea? And what is the invasion, it seems to appear from no where.
  • Good point, added a line.
• "Kaykhusraw's disintegrating army fled". Why and in what way was it disintegrating? I would suggest 'demoralised', if the sources permit. And in the main article.
  • The sources imply rather than state "demoralised", and one does explicitly mention a "disintegration", but I agree that more explanation would be helpful, and have done my best in both places.
• A map of Rum would be nice. Cplakidas, do you know of a decent map of Rum c. 1240? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: not on Commons, unfortunately. There's File:Sultanate of Rûm.svg of course, but without a source.

Constantine If you chase down the sourcing, it is based on this; the map is at the top. It is in turn cited to the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I am a bit dubious about the details of some of the conquests shown and their supposed timeframes, but FWIW generally the map seems OK, and matches what I have seen elsewhere. Constantine ✍ 22:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with both ends of your comments. A map like that is inevitably simplistic, but that sort of thing seems acceptable at FAC so long as adequately sourced. Thanks for your assistance Constantine. (I have a FAC here if you are interested. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• • Maps like File:LatinEmpire2.png also don't have sources. In extremis I would go with File:South-eastern Europe c. 1210.jpg, even though it is very old, at least it comes from a historical atlas, and it broadly fits the maps I have seen in more modern works. If anyone wants to make a new map or adapt File:Sultanate of Rûm.svg I have some sources that might be useful. Constantine ✍ 20:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Cplakidas, I could have a go? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

      AirshipJungleman29 with pleasure. I will seek to gather what sources I have and share them with you. Constantine ✍ 12:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• "gained control of the entire region". What region would that be?
  • Specified.

Perhaps "and gained control over most of Anatolia"?

• "over the next 150 years". Starting when?
  • 1077—the start of Suleiman ibn Qutalmish's reign.

If you reread the sentence you only see a "soon". There is no way for a reader to associate it with 1077. It could be anytime after 1071.

• "invaded first the Russian principalities and then Europe itself." The Russian principalities are in Europe.
  • Distinguished.
• "had correctly feared that Jalal al-Din's activities would draw the attention of the Mongols towards his kingdom." Why?
  • Clarified, but the previous paragraph is also relevant.
• "nobles from the Greek remnants of the Byzantine Empire". If you are going to include "Greek", should it not be 'nobles from the remnants of the Greek Byzantine Empire'?
  • No, because "remnants of the Greek Byzantine Empire" would include nobles from the Crusader Latin Empire, whereas the sources distinguish between them and "the remnants of the Byzantine Empire" which retained Greek culture and identity—i.e. the Empire of Nicaea, the Empire of Trebizond, and the Despotate of Epirus, along with a number of smaller states.
• "while his own armies contained". What's "his own army"? You have just said "build a strong army ... by hiring large numbers of mercenaries". Was this "strong army" not Kaykhusraw's then?
  • Well, you know the loyalties of mercenaries are fickle...but clarified.

Sure I knew what you meant. (I took Mercenary War through FAC.) But ...

• "mostly ethnic Mongols but also included". you only need one of "also" and "included".
  • You sure? It sounds wrong in my head without either.

Weell, ok.

• "The core of the Mongol army was about 30,000 experienced and disciplined troops, who were mostly ethnic Mongols but also included Uighurs and men from Turkestan, led by Baiju and a number of competent officials." This sprawls a little, suggest putting the command arrangements into a separate sentence. And why were officials preferred over military officers or generals?
  • Split and adjusted.
• "They were accompanied by Georgian and Armenian cavalry". 1. Suggest this goes after the components of the core army and before the command arrangements. 2. Any idea of their numbers? 3. The lead gives "around 30,000", the text gives the "core" of the army as around 30,000; this leaves no room for any Georgians or Armenians.
  • (1) done, (2) I had a very good look when writing the article but didn't find anything, (3) good point, I have adjusted the lead.
• "a more realistic estimate is 80,000." It is usual to name in line the person/people making this claim.
  • Done.
• "During the night, the disintegrating forces of Rum fled their camp; they included the sultan, who was concerned that some of his more disloyal subjects could defect to Baiju, and who thus fled to Ankara." This sentence is arguably overworked, and contains "fled" twice.
  • Reworked.
• "this delay in advancing cost them the chance of capturing Kaykhusraw." And of destroying his army I assume?
  • Probably, but there wasn't much army left—remember, most were mercenaries who realised which way the wind was blowing quite quickly. All the RS hone in on the Mongol desire to capture Kaykhusraw—fairly characteristic of many of their campaigns.

Fair nuff.

• "at the expense of Rum's treasury." Suggest 'at Rum's expense.'
  • Shortened.

Great work. Get it moved straight on to FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Gog the Mild; responses above! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• A minor point, but "also" turns up a lot.

A couple of comebacks. Mostly more than I would want at ACR, but I am using my FAC head. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

Image review - passed

• File:Bataille de Közä Dagh (1243).jpeg PD - okay

  File:Kösedağ, Suşehri, Sivas.jpg - CC 4.0 - okay

Source review - passed

• Sources are of good quality
• Formatting is fine and consistent
• 4b, 7a, 9b: okay
• 13: okay
• 25: okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

SMS Berlin

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Berlin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After quite a bit of time away from formal review processes, I'm getting back into it (I think we both know you missed seeing the stream of German warships passing through ACR). Berlin had an interesting career across three German navies, and was one of the few larger ships to survive World War II (though simply as a barracks ship). Thanks for taking the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

HF

I'll review this over the coming week. Hog Farm _Talk 03:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• As a bit of a comprehensiveness check, I've consulted Halpern's A Naval History of World War I and the only information about Berlin in that work is already well-represented in this article (towing the torpedoed Munchen)
• Infobox says she was recommissioned on 1 August 1914 but the body says 17 August 1914. Is the infobox just missing the second digit?
  • Yeah, just a typo
• "when he was briefly replaced by KL Hans Walther" - the rank abbreviation KL is never given its full name in the article
  • Good catch
• " and she was transferred to Wilhelmshaven, where she was decommissioned on 10 June " - had she ever be recommissioned after the 1917 decommissioning?
  • Not until 1922, as far as I'm aware
    • I see what's going on how - I had missed "had decided to reactivate the vessel to serve as a training ship for naval cadets" in the preceding sentence. Hog Farm _Talk 21:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• I would recommend in long place names lists such as "She visited Ponta Delgada, Hamilton, Bermuda, Port au Prince, Haiti, Colón, Venezuela, Puerto Madryn, Argentina, Guayaquil, Ecuador, Callao, Peru, and several ports in Chile, including Valparaiso, Corral, Talcahuano, and Punta Arenas" to consider ending each individual City, Country name with a semicolon instead of a comma, such as Port au Prince, Haiti; - I think this is recommended at time for lists containing indiviudal items with commas within them to make it clearer which sets in the list are individual items
  • Good catch - I wrote this article a few years ago before I knew that was a thing
• The infobox says she was scuttled in 1947, is this an error for 1946 which is what the body and lead have? The article is also in a category for maritime incidents in 1947
  • 1947 is a commonly cited date (presumably originating with Groener, which is also where the claim that she was used to dispose of chemical weapons originated), but Dodson & Cant correct it - apparently when I updated the article with their book a few months ago, I forgot to fix the infobox.

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm _Talk 04:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks good; supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 21:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Project Pluto

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Project Pluto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Introducing one of Wikipedia's stranger articles, an artifact of the Golden Age of Mad Science, which ran from roughly 1945 to 1970. It was fun to write. The project aimed to use a nuclear engine in a supersonic cruise missile. It would operate at Mach 3, or around 3,700 kilometres per hour, be invulnerable to interception by contemporary air defenses, and carry up to sixteen with nuclear weapons with yields of up to 10 megatonnes of TNT. What could possible go wrong? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Marking a spot. This will probably be a bit episodic. Nudge me if I seem to have forgotten about it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "The need to maintain supersonic speed ... meant that the reactor had to survive high temperatures and intense radiation." I can see how "The need to maintain supersonic speed at low altitude and in all kinds of weather meant that the reactor had to survive high temperatures and intense radiation" but why should the low altitude and the kind of weather raise the reactor temperature and radiation levels? Similarly in the main article.

  Y Added an explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Nice.

• The second half of "Development" is probably not in summary enough nor non-technical enough terms for FAC, but it scrapes by my personal ACR threshold.

Down to "Test facilities" and so far it is an excellent read with very little to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• "the binder was burned out by heating them to 820 °C". Either 'binders were' or 'heating it'.

  Y Tweaked to make it clear that we are still talking about the tubes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• "and the air from them used was passed through filters." This is a little unclear, should it be 'the used air from them'?

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• "were accessible through opening that were normally covered with lead plates". A missing s?

  Y Added 's'. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• "It also contained a maintenance service pit and battery charger for locomotive." '... the locomotive[s]' ?

  Y Added 's' Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Issues that had been ignored in Tory II-A had to be resolved in that of Tory II-C." "that of", what of?

  Y The design. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• "the shim rods scrammed". Could we have an in line explanation of scram at first use; it is a specialist usage.

  Y Linked to scram.

Bleh! You wouldn't get away with that at FAC.

• "equivalent to $1,953 million in 2023". Just a thought '$2 bn'?

  Changed to "2,000 million"; is that okay? $2 billion would be trickier with the template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It will do. You don't have to use the converter "in line". You could insert "$2 billion" by hand and keep the same cite.

That's it from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi, ran the IA Bot on the page, will post my comments soon. Matarisvan (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Matarisvan: - Are you still hoping to review this? It would be the last needed review for this one barring the source review. Hog Farm _Talk 23:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

HF

I'll try to review this one first and then McCain. Hog Farm _Talk 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• Does the R Division stand for "Rocket Division", or does it have some less obvious significance?

  Yes. This was the usual practice at LLNL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• "It would carry sixteen nuclear warheads with nuclear weapon yields of up to 10 megatonnes of TNT (42 PJ) each" - I don't think this is quite right. The text of the source reads It could carry more nuclear weapons, and larger weapons if desired, than a Polaris submarine, which has a normal complement of sixteen missiles each with a warhead of under ten megatons. In the source, the count of sixteen missiles appears to be a reference to what was on the Polaris submarine. Our article at Submarine-launched ballistic missile does mention the early US nuclear missile subs carrying sixteen warheads. Elsewhere in the source, it mentions the rockets potentially carrying dozens of smaller nuclear warheads

  You're quite right. Re-worded. (You may also be concerned at how few warheads a submarine has. Fear not! A modern Trident has up to 24 missiles, each carrying up to eight warheads, although fewer are usually carried.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Can it be clarified more what a MW-day is? The MW is megawatt, but I'm struggling to figure out what that would signify? Enough fuel to produce one megawatt of energy continually for a day?

  Yes. It is actually a unit of energy. A million joules per second each day. As the fuel is burned up in the reactor, power generation will fall off. We can offset this effect by ... never mind. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• "The uranium was in the form of oralloy: uranium enriched to 93.2 percent uranium-235)." - I'm not seeing where the accompanying open parenthesis is

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Is it relevant to briefly explain what Tory III would have been?

  My understanding is that Tory III was an improved version, but was still in the design phase when the project was cancelled. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm _Talk 03:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Tory-IIC at Jackass flats.jpg - source link no longer works
• File:Pluto-SLAM.png - source link no longer works and there needs to be some way to verify that this artist's impression is actually accurate

  Added archive links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  Except the archive link is for an article from 2021, while this file was uploaded in 2012. It looks like that archived website just took the file from Wikipedia. Also - is there any way to have a source that verifies that the artist's impression is actually an accurate depiction of the missile? Is Greg Goebel who made the image someone who is known in this field? Hog Farm _Talk 17:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  Oops, wrong link; replaced with a different archive reference. I did not add this image to the article. Greg Goebel is a prolific author of books about US bombers and missiles. See [1]. The image looks correct; compare with those at Vought (I think that is where I got the sixteen warheads figure from.) But I have doubts about its copyright status. Replaced with a NASA image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The other images seem fine. Hog Farm _Talk 04:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Support on the content review and pass on the image review. Hog Farm _Talk 23:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

John S. McCain Sr.

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

John S. McCain Sr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The World War II admiral of Guadalcanal fame. "Slew" McCain and his son "Junior" McCain were the first father and son to become four-star admirals in the US Navy, although Slew's promotion was posthumous. (In fact, the only ever posthumous promotion to that rank.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Nick-D

This ACR seems malformed - the usual headings aren't in place.

This is a problem with our Template:WikiProject Military history. See Template talk:WikiProject Military history#A class preload boilerplate for deatils. MSGJ (talk · contribs) is working on it. In the meantime, I have added them manually. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to offer the following comments focused on the World War II section, with the proviso that I'm going to be travelling without Wikipedia access for a month starting next week.

I only just got back from Poland and Paris. Have a great time! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• The material in the 'Mariana and Philippine campaigns' section explaining the system where the command teams alternated is a bit unclear - there's too much detail.

  Y Elaborated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• This section is probably too long, which doesn't help readability.

  Y Broken up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• The engagement described in the final sentences of the para starting with "Task Group 38.1 sortied from Eniwetok on 29 August 1944" actually refers to the Formosa Air Battle, not raids on the Philippines.

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'd suggest explaining the difference between a task group and a task force in the Third/Fifth Fleet

  Y Added explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• It would be good to explain the nature of the relationship between Hasley and McCain. From memory, historians tend to note that they made a good team but had roughly the same blind spots.

  Looking for something on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• More broadly, the article doesn't really convey the importance of the role McCain held as the commander of the most important part of the most powerful naval force in the world in 1944-45 (yet almost always with a very strong minded commanding officer in direct control of this force).

  Y Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• The para starting wit "After replacing the damaged ships" is a bit unclear, and doesn't really capture the fact that the Third Fleet was in the wrong place at the wrong time due to Halsey's misjudgements.

  Y Elaborated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'd suggest noting the South China Sea raid

  Y Noted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• The 'Okinawa campaign' campaign section seems overly brief and is a bit misnamed. It should also cover the series of attacks TF38 made against Japan in the last weeks of the war. Notably, McCain strongly opposed the Attacks on Kure and the Inland Sea (July 1945) and was probably right given the heavy casualties incurred attacking ships that the Japanese could no longer use due to fuel shortages.

  Y Added more about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Did the British knight McCain in recognition of his collaboration with the British Pacific Fleet?

  I believe so, but have not found a reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nick-D, any further comments to come from your end? If not, could we have your vote, now that you're back from your break? Matarisvan (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Hawkeye7, my comments:

• In the infobox, when we already have we listed John S. McCain Jr. in the Children label, why have we listed Jr. again as Sr.'s son in the Relatives label?

  Y I don't know; another editor added it. Changed to "3" per Template:Infobox person. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "that caused destruction of": might "that caused the destruction of" be better?

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "report to the armored cruiser USS Pennsylvania on the West Coast": do we know where exactly on the West Coast?

  I have checked three different sources and all they say is "on the Pacific coast". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "escorting shipping": "ships" instead of "shipping"?

  "shipping" is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "McCain left the San Diego on 26 May 1918": Do we know why?

  Y For a new assignment. Changed wording to make this clear. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Link to U-boat on first mention in the Early career and World War I section?

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "consisted of VF-4...": perhaps we could rephrase this to clarify that these were squadrons? I had to click on the VB-4 link to confirm they were.

  Y Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "could be released from 200 to 300 feet": What was the earlier range of the Mark 13s?

  Y Clarified that this refers to altitude, not range. It had a maximum range of 6,300^x. ("Mk XIII Aerial Torpedo". National Museum of the United States Air Force. Retrieved 16 October 2024.) Is this worth adding? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Introduce and link Knox and Halsey on first mention instead of second?

  Y Already linked on first mention. Unlinked on second. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "completion of a new airfield on Espiritu Santo": Are any dates available for this completion? Also, wouldn't "construction" be better than "completion", since this was a new airfield and not a brownfield one?

  Y The wording emphasises that McCain pressed to get it ready in time. The construction of the airfield without engineer units was a saga in its own right. Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "revictualing": Gloss as "loading supplies", perhaps in brackets, for those not familiar with military terminology?

  Y Linked to the wiktionary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding my support, all the issues I had raised have been addressed. Matarisvan (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• All images have appropriate licenses.
• Suggest adding alt text. I could do it if you're ok with that. Matarisvan (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sure. Go right ahead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Alts added for all images, the image review is a pass now. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review

• Location of publication needed for Drury & Calvin 2006.

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Suggest running the IABot on the page once the huge current backlog is resolved.
• Will do spot checks tomorrow.

That was all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, I will be doing 12 spot checks, ~10% of the total refs. Here go the spot checks:

• Ref #19: all 19 pages of the source being cited to support McCain's work at the Bureau of Navigation seems excessive. I think 1-3 pages would be enough, no?
• Ref #20: ok.
• Refs #23 and #25: I think citing all the pages of the sources is not necessary. We could just cite the sources without adding page numbers for these two refs, and the first one in this list.
• Ref #45: ok.
• Refs #62 and #63: ok.
• Ref #106: ok.
• Refs #107 and #109: dead links, you may have to remove these.
• Ref #110: ok.
• Ref #115: ok.

Matarisvan (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• I have substituted another newspaper for fn 107.
• fn 109 is a book and is not dead. Do we have the right reference number?
• 19, 23 and 25 are provided so the reader can look up the original works by McCain. The reader looking for a hard copy will need the page numbers. The text is supported by the secondary reference.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, I meant ref 108, the Arlington National Cambridge website. The URL doesn't load on both my laptop and phone, and the archive URL also does not work. Matarisvan (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, the link might not be working outside of the US. Anyway, everything else is good, so the source review is a pass. Matarisvan (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I am outside the US. Strange. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

HF

I'll review this over the coming week; if I haven't started by Tuesday evening please ping me. Hog Farm _Talk 17:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Current reassessments

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

USS Texas (BB-35)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)}

USS Texas (BB-35) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#USS Texas (BB-35) A-Class reappraisal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

For ease of reading the concerns raised by voorts were as follows:

• A1: The citation style is inconsistent. There are refs (including some bare URLs) mixed in with {{sfn}}s. Some claims are cited to irreputable sources, such as YouTube videos (e.g., ref 71) and primary sources (see all 18 references tagged with {{third-party inline}} as of Sept. 2012). There's also a valid {{failed verification}} tag from Nov. 2012 and three valid citation needed tags (oldest Jan. 2023). Additionally, all but one of the nine footnotes (ref group A) lack inline citations.
• A2: The article goes into unnecessary detail in that it relies on primary sources. It also lacks relevant detail in that the 2022 dry docking section hasn't been updated since April 2024. Additionally, given the sourcing issues, the article may not be factually accurate.
• A3: The service history section is well-organized, but the museum section has several sub-sections with three short paragraphs mixed in with much longer sub-sections. Both could also use years in parentheticals in the subheadings.

Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with "unnecessary detail in that it relies on primary sources". Unnecessary detail is when an article goes off on a tangent and becomes for a time about something other than the topic. Use of primary sources is acceptable, and so long as they are about the subject, is not unnecessary detail. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. It's not always true that primary source use leads to unnecessary detail. But, if secondary sources haven't covered an aspect of something, there might be a WP:BALASP issue if primary sources are overused. Here, 18 out of the 116 (or ~16% of) references are to primary sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I have initiated work on this article. I have finished the biblio formatting and hope to get this rewrite done soon, hopefully within a month from now. Matarisvan (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: just a note that this article was delisted at GAR. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Nick-D

I'll be travelling for a month without Wikipedia access from the end of this week, so will only comment (mainly on the World War II section which I'm most competent to comment on) rather than vote on whether the article should be delisted. My comments are:

• The DANFS references should be replaced as it's no longer considered to be a reliable source. It should be straightforward to do this for an article on a very famous battleship.
• The multiple notes and citations in the lead are undesirable, and the notes are unreferenced
• There's too much detail on the current restoration work on the ship in the lead
• The construction section should cover the context in which the ship was ordered (e.g. why was the USN ordering battleships at this time? What role were they intended for? Was Texas ordered as part of a broader program, etc)
• "At that point in the war, the doctrine of amphibious warfare was still embryonic. Many Army officers did not recognize the value of prelanding bombardments. Instead, the Army insisted upon attempting a landing by surprise" - I don't think that this is correct, and illustrates the limitations of DANFS. The US Army was hoping that the French in North Africa wouldn't fight and didn't want to fire the first shots as a result. This was a largely successful strategy.
• "Texas was one of only three U.S. battleships (Massachusetts and New York) that took part in Operation Torch" - this doesn't read well, and "only" is a bit odd given that three battleships is rather a lot!
• I'm not sure if the para on Walter Cronkite is needed: this is much more significant to the article on the journalist than that on this ship.
• Why was Texas still escorting convoys through the North Atlantic in 1943 and 1944? The Royal Navy had largely ended the use of battleships for this purpose in the North Atlantic by this time as the remaining German surface fleet was focused on Norway and the convoy routes to the Soviet Union.
• The 'Rehearsal' section would benefit from a trim and a better title
• The 'Battle of Cherbourg' section doesn't really say what the outcome of this engagement was
• It would be good to say more about the experiences of the ship's crew
• The '1988–1990 dry dock period' section is too detailed
• The 'Dry berth project' section seems over-long
• Ditto the 'Leaks' section Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)