Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2017/Promoted

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Successful[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.

Article promoted by Biblioworm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

North-West Mounted Police[edit]

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk)

North-West Mounted Police (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I'm hoping to take it to A Class review in due course. I've put a fair bit of research time into this, and consulted with the WikiProject Canada on some of the terminology, and I feel confident it now reflects the wide range of literature on the North-West Mounted Police. Further help with clarity, flow, any miscreant language, etc. would definitely help in taking it to the next step. Very many thanks in advance! Hchc2009 (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Police_Fort_Walsh_1878.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:North-West_Mounted_Police,_Fort_Calgary,_1878.jpg, File:LastSpike_Craigellachie_BC_Canada.jpg, File:Corporal_Shaw,_North_West_Mounted_Police.jpg, File:NWMP_in_Yukon_in_tent.jpg, File:Troop_front_Canadian_Mounted_Rifles_with_2nd_Contingent,_South_Africa_No_15118a_(HS85-10-11351)_(trimmed).jpg, File:North_West_Mounted_Police_1885.jpg, File:Royal_North-West_Mounted_Police_Barracks,_ca._1904_-_1925.jpg
  • File:North-West_Mounted_Police,_Fort_Calgary,_1878.jpg. There's some interesting history I've dug up on this, which claims to the "first photograph taken in Calgary". Library and Archives Canada lists the author as "unknown"; the copyright claim written on lower right of the photograph is Ernest Brown, which may be the early photographer Ernest Brown, photographer (1877 to 1951), who collected early photographs and negatives. Brown purchased the stock and negatives of C. W. Mathers at the start of his career; Mathers had come to Edmonton in 1891 to open a branch for the Calgary firm of Boorne and May, and later bought their entire collection, which may well be where this negative came from. The 1878 date, however, would predate the arrival of Ernest May and his cousin William Hanson Boorne, who emigrated to Canada in 1882; either the date may be inaccurate, or May and Boorne may have acquired it from another photographer. A photograph of this date would have been circulated for sale through the photographer's shop (the practice was to display them internally, to encourage purchases or new commissions), so would have been published by our definition. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:LastSpike_Craigellachie_BC_Canada.jpg - added. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Corporal_Shaw,_North_West_Mounted_Police.jpg. We can establish for certain it was published after 2002, which would make it in the PD in the US (as the life+70 rule then applies, under the slightly complicated US arrangements). Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can confirm that was first publication?
  • I can't find any earlier evidence, and there's no particular reason to suspect that a sketch would have been published. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:NWMP_in_Yukon_in_tent.jpg
  • As a probable Goetzman image, would have been published for sale around 1898. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Troop_front_Canadian_Mounted_Rifles_with_2nd_Contingent,_South_Africa_No_15118a_(HS85-10-11351)_(trimmed).jpg
  • Unclear. The original photograph and copyright was acquired by the Patent and Copyright Office in Canada, and then given to the British Library, who declare the copyright to have expired and the image to now be in the public domain. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:North_West_Mounted_Police_1885.jpg
  • Probably published for sale in 1885, although if not, would then be an anonymous work with no evidence of publication, US gives this 120 years of protection from creation (1885). Hchc2009 (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Royal_North-West_Mounted_Police_Barracks,_ca._1904_-_1925.jpg.
  • Produced by a commercial company that sold photographs, souvenirs and collections of photographs; publication date would have been c.1918. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the source of the data presented in File:Canada_provinces_1871-1873_simplified.png?
  • I don't know what the original editor used; it matches up with sources I've seen elsewhere. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:North_West_Mounted_Police_1900.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
  • Original circulated by Associated Screen News Ltd., so would meet our definition of publication; 70-yr tag replaced by Canada tag. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Leth_old.jpg: is a more specific copyright tag available? Same with File:Christmas_dinner_at_Royal_North_West_Mounted_Police_station,_Fort_Macleod_(15902402559).jpg
  • I've had a look, and beyond the Canada tags, which I've added, no. From what I can see, these are images that would have been acquired with copyright by the collecting institutions, so have probably been effectively released by them when put onto Flickr, but I can't be certain about the process the museum and archive have used. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:The_R.N.W.M.P._Detachment_in_training_at_Shorncliffe,_August_1918.jpg: why would this be UKGov? Same with File:RNWMP_operations_in_Winnipeg_General_Strike,_1919.jpg
  • File:The_R.N.W.M.P._Detachment_in_training_at_Shorncliffe,_August_1918.jpg is credited to "government", and is of military personnel carrying out military training on a British base; a Canadian (or British) government photograph of this sort would be covered by Crown Copyright. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:RNWMP operations in Winnipeg General Strike, 1919.jpg is credited to "government" and specifically to the mounted police; again, showing government personnel carrying out operational work; a Canadian government or police photograph would be covered by Crown Copyright. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The PD-Canada template covers Canadian Crown copyright though - I'm wondering why we're using UK here. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It covers it, but doesn't state that it is Crown copyright - it's the same royal perogative, though. In addition, the Shorcliffe photograph was taken in the UK, not Canada. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:StateLibQld_2_126279_Sir_George_Arthur_French,_1883.jpg is tagged as lacking author info and needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tag added; as an anonymous work with no evidence of publication, US gives this 120 years of protection from creation (1883). Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "was instead surged": ?
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Looking forward to seeing this at FAC; it's excellent. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the copyediting Dank! "instead surged" should now be fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I reviewed this article at GA, and I believe that it meets the standards of an A-class article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

  • The most conventional usage in the literature for volumes covering both period is just the plain North-West Mounted Police. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plans for closure were abandoned What plans? Did I miss it or are these not mentioned earlier in the lead?
  • was once again put in doubt Do we need the "put"?
  • Towards the end of the war, however For reasons I don't fully understand, "however" is frowned upon at FAC. The word is overused and sometimes it's easy to reword the sentence, sometimes it's not. Just something to think about.
  • I think I'll risk this one - it is stressing the contrast with the previous sentence. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the lead for now. I'll be back with more in the coming days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming:

  • sent west by rail through the United States Do we know how the US government felt about this? Was there any damage to diplomatic relations given that they'd declined the US Army's help?
  • Not that I can find in the literature. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lieutenant Governor Morris disagreed with this approach, however, "disagreed with this approach" suggests it had been decided but the preceding sentence sounds like it was just one option; also that "however" looks like it could be removed without any great loss.
  • gathering to attack across the border in the United States Gathering in the US or in Canada? It looks like the US but it's not entirely clear. Switching the clauses to "gathering in the United States to attack across the border" would clear it up.
  • The force took two 9-pounder (4 kg) guns and two mortars for protection... I assume they also carried small arms? Worth spelling it out.

More to follow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I say small arms, I'd also have to include swords etc. - I've added the word "additional", implying that they had other weapons as well... see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • sympathy for the British imperial cause Do we really need the link there?
  • I'm fairly relaxed; I think its helpful to some non-British readers, but wouldn't lose sleep if it were removed. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything more to say about the NWMP's influence on or legacy within the RCMP?
  • Not that I could find in the literature. For many years the RCMP discouraged sociological work that might have provided those insights. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you considered splitting some of the history into a daughter article like History of the North-West Mounted Police? This article is on the long side (12,759 words), which would make it 400 words longer than Barack Obama, currently the longest featured article on the English Wikipedia and it's dominated by the history.
  • The last paragraph sort of leaves the reader hanging. What are the new lines of research? The mention of court cases suggests controversy but the various arguments aren't discussed. What's the narrative of the more recent histories? What do we know about the NWMP as a result of modern scholarship that we didn't know before?
  • I've added a bit more detail in. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's space and you can find something appropriate, another map or two of the areas being discussed might be helpful to readers not familiar with Canadian geography.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd thought something similar, although I struggled to fit one in. Do you think a collapsed map might help? Hchc2009 (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you know how to do something like that then certainly. It's not something I'd withhold support over, but it did occur to me as I was reading that another map would have been helpful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, the only concern I have that's based on the A-class criteria is the length, and even that I'd be willing to overlook at least at ACR if others don't think it's a big deal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comments by auntieruth[edit]

  • Whew! massive article, and really interesting. I've done a minor copy edit on the first half, added some links, etc. If it's not ok, please feel free to revert. I'll come back in a day or two and finish up. I'll be looking forward to supporting this! Nice job. auntieruth (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Iazyges[edit]

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The North-West Mounted Police was created as a consequence of the expansion" may wish to simply have "due to" rather than "as a consequence", given that no other such consequences are given (and should not be, in order to remain on subject).
  • "The new Dominion government was keen to expand westwards, in part due to fears that the United States might annex the region." is there anything to suggest said fears were founded?
  • "Macdonald's Conservative government then fell from power over the Pacific Scandal" should probably change "over" to "due to", or even "as a result of".
  • "The government ordered an investigation, followed by a judicial inquiry, both of which cleared Herchmer of any serious charges." was he then convicted of non-serious charges? If so, should probably get a short mention. i.e was he jailed, did he get fined 10 pence?
  • That is all my comments, happy to support as is. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly done. Historians are divided on the fears of US annexation question; some look to the events on the southern edge of the US frontier, and see a real risk; others suggest that the Canadian government might have been worrying excessively. Herchmer wasn't convicted of any other charges, but minor issues were highlighted in the report; I can't see an easy way to summarise this without going into a fair bit of detail though. Thanks for the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, nice work. Please note this isn't a full review as there are already substantial comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • agree that the article is quite long per Harry's comments, but given the length of time this review has been open, I'd suggest that it could be closed as successful with the understanding that the article possibly needs a little reduction before going to FAC (if the intention is to send it there)
  • there are a couple of potentially overlinked terems: Fort Dufferin, industrial dispute, Inuit, Snider-Enfield, Lee-Metford,
  • "force- which at the time remained" --> "force, which at the time remained"
  • citation 139: "Hewitt 1998, pp. 352—53": should be an endash rather than an endash
  • "Commissioner Irvine, who had..." --> "Irvine, who had" per WP:SURNAME
Changes made as suggested; thanks Rupert. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2017 (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 HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1894)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1894) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Petropavlovsk spent more time under construction than she did in service as she was sunk early in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05 after striking a mine. While her loss certainly weakened the Russian position in the Far East, the biggest impact was the death of the Russian squadron commander, the aggressive and charismatic Vice Admiral Stepan Makarov. I've thoroughly overhauled the article recently and believe that it meets the A-class criteria. As usual, I'm looking for infelicitous prose and any jargon that needs linking or explaining before I send this to FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Iazyges[edit]

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • " The ship was sent to the Far East almost immediately after she entered service in 1899. " Would suggest mentioning when she was laid down and launched before this bit.
    • I save that sort of detail for the main body.
  • "in the Battle of Port Arthur that began the war" would recommend you change this to:
  • "in the Battle of Port Arthur which began the war"
    • I always get confused about the difference between "which" and "that", but I think that I'm using it correctly here.
  • ", higher-velocity," is there a better way to phrase this? It seems like its saying the guns are faster (although you certainly wouldn't use high velocity to talk about any main gun moving).
    • I think that this is OK because readers understand that guns generally don't move much, but their shells do.
  • "were unable to fulfill the existing demand so" probably should put a comma between "demand" and "so".
    • OK
  • "That same year a radio was installed aboard the ship." Would recommend that you move this up to the design section.
    • No, because it was added later.
  • "destroyer Strashnii fell in with four Japanese destroyers in the darkness while on patrol." Does this section mean that the Japanese realized that Strashnii wasn't supposed to be there immediately, and Strashnii then realized it; or else that they sailed in formation for some time before Strashnii realized they were Japenese ships?
    • I think that the beginning of the next sentence makes it clear that it took a while for the Russian commander to figure out that they were Japanese.
  • That is all my comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to Support as is. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in fine shape. A few comments from me:

  • suggest "She participated in the suppression of the Boxer Rebellion
  • in what way were the replacement 12-inch guns more powerful? Longer range, high muzzle velocity?
  • link ship displacement
  • check rounding of characteristics between body and infobox eg length
  • link naval mine
  • belt armour doesn't match between body and infobox
  • "the ship helped to suppress of the Boxer Rebellion", and link Boxer Rebellion
  • IJN isn't introduced before use, suggest in full
  • I'm not familiar with Japanese naming conventions, but should it be Tōgō or Heihachirō?
  • suggest using Makarov's rank and full name when first mentioned in the body
  • link Vasily Vereshchagin in the body.
  • The Silverstone footnote doesn't have a full citation in Sources
  • The Corbett footnote doesn't properly link to the full citation in Sources
  • The full Gangut citation needs some more detail, I assume it is a periodical, is there an ISSN OCLC or other identifier, also a date of publication is needed
  • Kowner needs a publication location

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very thorough review. If I linked something in the lede, I didn't bother linking it again. Other than that I think that I've responded to all of your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, Sturm, nice work as usual. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, "652 men and 27 officers died": typically sentences shouldn't start with numerals, so I suggest maybe: "A total of 652 men and 27 officers died..."
  • "of 1904–05," and "of 1894–95, both..." --> "of 1904–1905," and "of 1894–1895, both..." per the (newish) guidance at WP:DATERANGE
  • there is an inconsistency regarding the launch dates in the infobox and the body of the article
  • in the infobox the deck armor is listed as 3 inches, but in the body it is 2-3 inches
  • "Delayed by shortages of skilled workmen, design changes and late delivery of the main armament, the ship was laid down on 19 May 1892": do we know when it was ordered?
  • "were unable to fulfill any further order..." perhaps "were unable to meet the demand"? (to reduce repetition of order and ordered)
  • "which naturally caused problems between them" --> "resulting in tensions between the two nations"?
  • "A further issue was the...": perhaps "The situation was worsened..." or "These tensions were heightened by..."?
  • "war was now inevitable" --> "war was inevitable"
  • "exiting the harbour" --> "exiting the harbor"
  • in the translation "Armoured cruiser "Bayan" and her offspring. From Port Artur to Moonsund", should this be "Armored" as you are using US spelling elsewhere?
    • I've adopted most of your suggestions, a few with tweaks, see if they suit. Thanks for the thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Factotem[edit]

Have only some very nitpicky comments on prose, which speaks for the quality of this article:

  • Section "Design and description", 2nd para, The Petropavlovsk-class ships' main battery consisted of four 12-inch guns mounted.... The main armament is already twice mentioned. Wonder if this sentence would be better started as something like "The four 12-inch guns of the main battery were mounted..."?
  • Designed to fire one round per 90 seconds.... "Per" reads slightly awkward to me. Maybe use "every" instead?
  • Section "Battle of Port Arthur", 2nd para, Petropavlovsk was not hit by the initial attack by torpedo boats.... Replace the first "by" with "in" or "during"?
  • ...and sortied the following morning when the Combined Fleet.... I tripped on this, thinking the Petropavlosk making its sortie was part of the Combined Fleet. The fleet is linked, and the next clause makes it obvious from the commander's name that it was a Japanese combined fleet, but maybe remove the trip by qualifying it as "...the Japanese Combined Fleet..." or similar?
  • Section "Sinking", 1st para, ...who believed that they were Russian destroyers whom he had ordered to patrol that area. The use of "whom" seems odd. I would have thought "which" was more appropriate.

None of the above is enough to dissuade me from supporting, so feel free simply to ignore as you see fit, but the following are perhaps a bit more problematical...

  • Source ISBNs are a mixture of ISBN-10 and -13. From Amazon, ISBN-13 for Kowner is 978-0810849273, Silverstone is 978-0882549798 and Westwood is 978-0887061912. Don't know what you want to do about different hyphenations with the existing ISBN13s - I learned from an ACR of mine simply to remove all hyphens.
    • There's no requirement to standardize ISBNs on all 13 digit ones, so I don't ever bother.
Ah. OK. I thought that came under "consistently referenced" per criteria A1, and it was picked up in a recent ACR of mine, but maybe that's because I signalled an intention to take it to FAC. Factotem (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience at FAC, that only applies to the use of dashes or not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And a very extensive experience it is too, I see. Still finding my feet with A-Class reviews. Live and learn. Factotem (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead image is licensed as public domain based on a copyright term of author's life plus 70 years, but given that the image summary states that the author is unknown, is this a valid tag?

That's all from me. FactotEm (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Good catch on the tag. It was a workable one, but not the best one, which I've now switched it to. Thanks for the review; I liked most all of your stylistic changes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2017 (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 Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

390th Rifle Division[edit]

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

390th Rifle Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the standards and would like to further improve another Soviet military history article since this is an area that lacks A-class articles. The 390th had a fairly ordinary career for a World War II rifle division, being destroyed in Crimea and later being reformed to fight in the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. The article was recently promoted to GA. Kges1901 (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by EyeTruth

  • Major M.M. Malkhasyan's 789th Regiment..." and "L.G. Akopov's 792nd Regiment..." and "S. Sargsyan... These initials are useless as pointers, and last names on their own are not enough when you're dealing with an army that fielded a huge number of officers. I would suggest dropping out all the people lacking full names from the article. But you should wait for other opinions on that matter.EyeTruth (talk) 06:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reviewed this article for GA, and I promoted it. I didn't do any source check. So I support on content only. EyeTruth (talk) 06:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • Done.
  • File:German_Conquest_of_the_Crimea.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Says 'own work', but it seems to correlate with what I know about the campaign. Kges1901 (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments/suggestions: G'day, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "during the Kerch-Feodosiya landing operation, which occurred in late-December 1942" --> "December 1941"?
  • Done
  • inconsistent terminology: "Second World War" and "World War II" --> either is fine, but please be consistent
  • Done
  • "Kerch-Feodosiya landing operation": should have an endash instead of the hyphen
  • Done
  • inconsistent caps: "Kerch-Feodosiya Landing Operation" v. "Kerch-Feodosiya landing operation"
  • Done
  • "8,979 had never handled weapons": were they subsequently provided any training, or just thrust into the line untrained?
  • Bezugolny was using these stats to make a point that the conscripts were untrained when they were mobilized, but Russian wiki says "after the formation". Kges1901 (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there an ISSN or OCLC number for the Bezugolny work?
  • Done
  • Done
  • "Second Formation" --> "Second formation"
  • Done
  • "with the 390th and 398th Rifle Divisions": remove the dab link for 398th and replace with a red link if necessary
  • Done
  • "On the overnight of 17–18 March..." --> "On the night of 17–18 March..."
  • Done
  • "789th Regiment" --> "789th Rifle Regiment"?
  • Done
  • "commanded by the following commanders.[2]" --> probably should be a colon instead of a full stop
  • Done
  • "included the following units.[16]" --> same as above
  • Done
  • suggest adding mention of Teplyakov to the Second Formation section
  • Done
  • are there any casualty figures that could be added?
  • I haven't found any.
  • I suggest adding an image to the infobox, if a suitable one exists

Support A couple of minor suggestions:

  • Link Armenian SSR
  • Suggest moving the postage stamp into the infobox like the Russian version.

I've linked to the Russian article. Revert if you disagree. Odd that the division would be reformed, but with entirely different components. Was this normal? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reforming a division by reusing the designation was a standard practice in the Red Army. Often the only commonality between the two formations was the designation.Kges1901 (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comments from auntieruth[edit]

nice job. I've made some minor copy edits here please feel free to revert if I've done something weird. I suggest, though, that you try to strengthen your verbs and simplify your sentences. :)
  • in "formation" there should be a link on Armenia, whichever form is appropriate. Also for Russian and Georgian
  • Per MOS:OVERLINK I do not link modern countries and ethnicities since I think most readers would be familiar. Kges1901 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • link on political officers
  • link Battle of Kerch Peninsula
  • both armies? Garrison? 51st and 44th? soviet and soviet, ????
  • Clarified that it was the 51st and 44th who attacked. Not sure what you mean by the other questions though.Kges1901 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • conversion template on the distance?
  • link Korpech?
  • despite news of the German build up, they were still surprised by a German attack?
  • That's what the source appears to say.Kges1901 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • penetration that the 390th and 398th Rifle Divisions had made....is this the 1.5-2km mentioned in the previous paragraph? could you clarify in the previous paragraph?
  • The previous paragraph with kilometers is January fighting in different positions. This penetration is a two-trench line gain in a mid-March attack.Kges1901 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • what are service troops? (staff troops?)
  • 17 not seventeen
  • Done, I guess I'll use AP Style rules for this.Kges1901 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • first mention of air support by Luftwaffe. Did Soviets have air support?
  • Technically, but the Luftwaffe gained air superiority.Kges1901 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eltingen? that cannot be right
  • A small town in Crimea, now a neighborhood of Kerch. Have changed redirect target.Kges1901 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • commanded by commissar? that's the political officer? This is unusual, right?
  • Unusual, I would guess that the CO became a casualty. Have linked commissar at first mention (Mekhlis) as in this sense it refers specifically to a political officer who assists the regimental commander. (Political officer generally means any functionary in a military unit)Kges1901 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • other units that suffered heavy casualties?
  • Yes, several other divisions had a similar fate.Kges1901 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • survivors were used to provide the experienced core of new formations
  • I'd link to Manchuku, not pipe it to Manchuria, and qualify this as the Japanese puppet "republican monarchy" in China.
  • point out that this was the collapse of Japanese military presence in China; occurred after bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that USSR only declared war on Japan on 8/9 August.
  • why 5th Separate Rifle Corps?
Good read, thanks for writing. auntieruth (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntieruth55: G'day, Ruth, when you get a chance, would you mind taking a look at Kges' changes and letting them know if you are happy to support this for promotion? The review has been open almost four months now, so probably needs to be closed shortly. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ruth, just a reminder to look this over and consider if you are happy to support. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Iazyges[edit]

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:09, 7 December 2017 (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 Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Civil Service Rifles War Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

Civil Service Rifles War Memorial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Tucked away in a quiet corner on London's Victoria Embankment, we have the Civil Service Rifles War Memorial, a relatively modest tribute to a small and unique regiment from the First World War. The main historical interest here is not the architect (as with many of my previous nominations) but the record of a now largely forgotten regiment. It's not a long article because a relatively obscure regiment and a lack of any great controversy don't leave a great deal to write about, but I feel it's comprehensiveness. As ever, all feedback is very much appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments From looking at my photos of London in 2015 it turns out that I actually saw this memorial (while visiting the excellent art gallery at Somerset House) - I had no idea it was by Lutyens. I've just uploaded one of my photos to Commons, though the memorial is already well illustrated - my attempt at a front view photo turned out less well than yours but an extra three quarter view might be helpful. Preliminary rambling aside, here are my comments:

  • The article discusses the Civil Service Rifles, but not the Cadet Battalion which the memorial's inscription makes specific reference to - can the Cadet Battalion's role be described? (was this the regiment's depot?)
    • I have no idea to be honest. I can't find any description of the cadet battalion, even in the ~240-page book dedicated to the CSR.
  • "Both battalions were disbanded after the war, having lost 1,240 officers and men killed" - this might be a bit pedantic, but can the casualty figure given on the memorial be cross-checked against other references? It's not unusual for the figures given on memorials to differ from those later calculated by historians. It might also be helpful to note how many men served in the regiment to provide context for the figure, if this is available.
    • Knight has an appendix covering attrition rates, including casualties, which I've now cited. It's a tricky issue, though, because of the regiment's recruiting base, many of its men were promptly commissioned and transferred elsewhere. I've also added the estimate of the total men who served in the CSR overseas, also from Knight.
  • "it was funded by donations, the regiment's funds, and also from the sales of a regimental history" - this was mentioned in an earlier section
    • Removed.
  • "By the time of the unveiling, the Civil Service Rifles had been reduced in size to two companies and amalgamated into the Queen's Westminster Rifles" - this is also mentioned in the previous para
    • I've combined the two paragraphs.
  • "In the early 1980s, much of the Civil Service was based elsewhere" - seems an under-statement given the size of the Civil Service: I imagine that it was also the case in 1914 (though as an aside, Roger Knight's excellent book Britain Against Napoleon: The Organisation of Victory states that virtually the entire British Civil Service was located in Somerset House during the Napoleonic Wars). Nick-D (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was obviously a much larger organisation by 1914, but much of it was sill based at Somerset House, and many of the offices based there were relocated from the 1980s onwards. Thanks very much for looking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to this reference, the UK civil service had 270,000 staff by 1914, so only a small minority would have been located at Somerset House. Based on my limited knowledge of the building(s?) history, I'd suggest changing this to something like "By the early 1980s, few civil servants remained in Somerset House". Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment: There is a little more on this memorial in Philip Ward-Jackson's Public Sculpture of Historic Westminster (further details in this bibliography) – for instance, it was originally to have been designed by Herbert Baker and the Office of Works initially objected to its being situated in the centre of the quadrangle of Somerset House. If it's OK with you I could add incorporate all the important points in Ward-Jackson to the article next week. Ham II (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ham II: That's interesting. I struggled with sources for this article—it's barely mentioned in most of the books I have on war memorials, architecture, and Lutyens—so anything you've got would be appreciated. I've ordered a copy of that book because I have two other Lutyens memorials to do in Westminster but if you get chance to make the additions before my copy arrives please feel free. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pleased to see that the book has arrived and you've beaten me to incorporating it into the article. Sorry for the extreme pedantry of what follows; this is another exemplary article from you. I can't wait to see what you do with the Cenotaph.
  • In the lead, I don't think the links are necessary; and regimental colour isn't a proper noun, so I've dropped the caps
  • Both battalions were disbanded shortly after the war, the regiment amalgamated with the Queen's Westminster Rifles, but former members established an Old Comrades Association... Change the first comma to a semicolon?
  • I was using the bit between the commas as a subordinate clause, but I suppose it could look like a comma splice, so done.
  • It takes the form of a single classical column: "Classical column" is slightly misleading; perhaps "rectangular column with classical mouldings"?
  • Done.
You seem to have done this in the "Design" section rather than in the lede. Ham II (talk) 07:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now done there as well! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The memorial was designated a grade II listed building: The uppercased "Grade II" is more usual, but are you following MOS:CAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalisation") here? Has this come up in one of your previous nominations?
  • I've always struggled to see how "grade" could be a proper noun (especially since "Listed Building" isn't).
  • Following the end of the war in 1918: One of the memorial's inscriptions gives the final year of World War I as 1919 – although this isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. (I'd love to know why so many war memorials do this.) Possibly find a way of phrasing it that avoids using the date 1918?
  • Easy enough to just remove those two words. I did read something about the reason so many memorials refer to 1919. I think the answer is essentially that the British Army was still busy with 'mopping up' operations around the empire, which modern historians don't consider to be part of the world war.
I believe it is because although there was an armistice on 11 November 1918 that ended hostilities, the war itself was not officially ended until the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. FactotEm (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you mention the MCM/ XIV and MCM/ XIX inscriptions? Ham II (talk) 07:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • the committee replaced Baker with Sir Edwin Lutyens → Lutyens has been mentioned often enough by this point that he can be referred to by his surname alone.
  • He's only mentioned in the background section a few paragraphs above; I think it bears repeating.
  • The Suffragan Bishop of Willesden William Perrin also attended. Link "Suffragan" to suffragan bishop, put commas before and after "William Perrin", and change "also attended" to "was also present" to avoid the repetition of "attended" in the next sentence?
  • Commas and wording done. I don't think we need the link; it's not particularly relevant and it would be three consecutive links (WP:SEAOFBLUE).
  • Done and done.
  • the attendees were aged in their nineties. "Aged" is unnecessary here, I think.
  • I don't know. "in their nineties" just seemed a bit informal, but I'm not attached to it.
  • Lord Houghton of Sowerby, a former member of the regiment and by then a member of the House of Lords, queried the government's plans → Lord Houghton of Sowerby, a former member of the regiment, raised a question in the House of Lords about the government's plans? No need to say that someone was by now in the House of Lords when that's already clear from his title.
  • I don't know if it's obvious to a non-Brit, but done.
  • In the bibliography, the authors of the Westminster volume of The Buildings of England should be in alphabetical order and the citations should refer to "Bradley & Pevsner" rather than "Pevsner". Although I unfortunately don't have the relevant book on me to check, I'm pretty sure that Pevsner himself insisted on this convention when he was writing The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture with the more junior art historians John Fleming and Hugh Honour.
  • Done.
  • Definitely. A photo of the quadrangle being used as a parade ground is useful background. Thank you very much for the compliment and for the review. No need to apologise for pedantry! Besides, I'd rather iron out the creases before it goes to FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport: Just a few nitpicky observations on prose...

  • Lede: I read "stone flags", then looked at the picture and thought that they're obviously not stone. Maybe it should read "painted stone flags"?
    • Done.
  • Background, 1st para, Lutyens established his reputation designing country houses for wealthy clients but the war had a profound effect on him.... Needs a comma after "clients"?
    • I'm sure I was taught not to put a comma before a "but"; not something I'd go to the wall over but I don't think it's necessary.
  • ...for the Cenotaph on Whitehall.... "at" Whiteall?
    • Whitehall is a street, so "on" seems more appropriate.
  • 3rd para, ...came under the command of the 140th (4th London) Brigade, under the 47th (London) Division. "under...under"?
    • Fixed.
  • Is it worth linking Salonika and Palestine?
    • Done.
  • History, 2nd para, Queen's Westminster Rifles is a redirect.
    • I'm aware, but I don't think it's immediately clear to the uninitiated that "Queen's Westminsters" refers to an army unit.
  • 3rd para, ...The Royal Green Jackets (the regiment resulting.... There's no explicit link between the Civil Service Rifles and the Royal Green Jackets. Maybe something along the lines of "...the successor regiment...", or anything to make clear that there is some lineage between the two?
    • I thought the parenthetical note was doing that, but I can add the word "successor" if that makes it clearer.
  • More for my own benefit really, but you picked up on my quote of the Fifth Gloucester Gazette as requiring a ref, and it looks to me that you put some things in quotes that are not ref'ed: in the 1st para of the Background section about "leading English architect of his generation" and in the final para of the article relating to listed buildings. Should they be ref'ed?
    • Probably. End of the sentence is probably sufficient, but certainly the reference was too far away for the "leading architect" quote.

I see no other issues. Nice article. FactotEm (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Harry, not a lot stood out to me. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are a few potentially overlinked terms: Battle of Loos, Battle of the Somme, Battle f Passchendaele, and Historic England
    Fixed.
  • suggest linking "plinth"
    Done.
  • "Major Kirby": can probably just be "Kirby" at this point per WP:SURNAME
    I put that in deliberately because there's a bit of a gap since he was last mentioned and it might help remind the reader who he is
  • "File:Inspection of the Civil Service Volunteers at Somerset House by the Prince of Wales.jpg": not sure about the licence on this one. Would {{PD-1923}} be a better licence?
    Good point. I should have checked this before I added it to the article. Fixed. Thanks very much, Rupert. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review Done. All good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:19, 24 December 2017 (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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Rhine Campaign of 1796[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth55

Rhine Campaign of 1796 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because ... working this year of the French Revolutionary Wars toward a featured topic status....this is the overview article for the group. Several of the sub articles are already at Featured article. auntieruth (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: epic article, Ruth, well done. I will have to defer reading it all for the weekend, but at the moment I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the Notes and citations section, there is a third level header for Notes, but nothing appears to be included in this subsection. I suggest splitting the Notes out from the Citations to fill out this subsection;
  • in the References section, is there an OCLC number for the Chandler work?
  • the duplicate link checker identifies quite a few potentially overlinked terms: Levee en masse, Rhine Campaign of 1795, Dagobert Sigmund von Wurmser, Renchen, Main (river), Wilhelm von Wartensleben, Imperial circles, Jean Baptiste Jourdan, Army of Sambre-et-Meuse, Army of Rhin-et-Moselle, Schaffhausen, Black Forest... et al (if you install the script I have linked, you will see what I mean);
  • I've tried installing this, I already had one. I can use the dupe detector once, and then it disables, and disappears from my choices!!! very frustrating!
  • G'day, Ruth, have you tried the new script, though? You might have better success with Evad's tool rather than the older one. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I entered it, it worked once and then disappeared! auntieruth (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "main force of 27,0000 infantry": should this be "27,000" or "270,000"; fixed
  • "Philippart, p. 127. and Alison, pp. 88–89. Smith, p. 132" --> "Philippart, p. 127; Alison, pp. 88–89; Smith, p. 132"?
  • I'lll fix those things...In the notes section, I moved "notes" to footnotes/citations because of the most recent snarl up on Battle of Rossbach at FA. BrianBoulton doesn't like my citation style, and objected to my having a slightly different citation format for Notes than for citations. I can readily put it back, which is why I left the "Notes" section intact. What do you think? auntieruth (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day, I definitely think the notes and citations should be separate, but don't want to set you up for failure at FA. Reading Brian's comment I think his comments might have potentially been misunderstood slightly. I think he was after adding citations to notes, so the that reference information inside the note was displayed with a blue ref, alongside the content of the note. For instance "Habsburg infantry wore white coats.[1]". Anyway, looking at how it currently is in this article, I'm not too concerned, but I'd argue potentially that "Note 4" as currently presented was a citation, not a note. That is possibly just splitting hairs, though, so . Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is a slight inconsistency in how you present ISBNs. Some have hyphens and some don't ok, now they all have the same hyphen.
  • there is slight grammatical error here: "only 37,000 men and 60 guns oppose more than 50,000 Allied troops in the theater" ' looking for it...should be opposed
  • there is a slight inconsistency in presentation here: "150,000 prisoners, 170 standards, 500 pieces of heavy artillery, 600 field pieces, five pontoon trains, 9 ships of the line, 12 frigates..." (specifically "9" but also "five") fixed
  • I've done a little copy editing tonight, but am still working through reading the rest of the article, which I will try to do tomorrow. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Resources for further reading section: typo here: "17879–1815" AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • inconsistent date presentation: "Retrieved 2011-01-07" v "Retrieved 30 April 2014" This is fixed.
  • refs 17 & 18 aren't consistently presented (compare also with ref 36) they are exactly the same. at least they look that we to me.
  • "Accessed" v "Retrieved": suggest making these terms consistent in the citations. This is fixed.
  • will fix thenotes section later to matcdh Battle of Rossbach.  :) auntieruth (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • fixed the notes section. removed the templates that were causing the problem with consistency of date. and fixed the other issues . Thanks @AustralianRupert: auntieruth (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: This one looks like it is almost ready to be closed. If you have some time, would you mind doing an image review? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Keith[edit]

  • Did a cheeky little ce, put the text through the Word splendidiser and found a few typos, homogenised the citations, hyphenated the isbns, added a few missing ones and rm deprecated author= in favour of last= first=. Rv as desired. Keith-264 (talk) 08:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few long citations with biblio details in them, when there is a full entry in the Biblio section. Wouldn't it be better to limit cites to <ref>Brown, 1997, p. 21</ref>? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ce looks good, I'll go through in more detail. I don't like the single refs. I'd rather list a bibliography for people who want more information, keep the citations to full citation first, then shortened citation thereafter. When a reader points to citation, the whole citation shows up, but if it just says "Brown, p. 62" then they don't know who/what/which Brown etc. auntieruth (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth your while to try sfns to save repetition. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried those, find it incredibly cumbersome, and annoying. auntieruth (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I find them the opposite but it's your decision so tally ho! ;o) Keith-264 (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Keith-264:, so is this support? auntieruth (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Keith-264:, is this support? Or are there more revisions you'd like? Please change the header, if there are no further issues. auntieruth (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind either way; apols I don't know which header you mean. regardsKeith-264 (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maury[edit]

To start, I note that this article has taken a tremendous amount of effort to write, and in general the topic is important and interesting. But as it stands, I think it needs some attention in terms of organization.
My largest concern, and this is true of the majority of articles I review, is that there are numerous instances of paragraphs of material that are constructed almost at random. Consider the "Political terrain" section, which consists of a single enormous paragraph that covers three entirely different topics (physical, political, administrative) and jumps around between them. Then there is the first paragraph of "background", which includes all sorts of what appear to be separate topics. I believe cleaning this up will improve the article greatly.
So much of what follows are suggestions on how to break up this material and re-arrange it into self-consistent topics. Here goes...
Minor stuff:
  • You have a lot of italic text that is in English. Generally, you only italicize the first instance of a term, and then only if it's not being used in the typical fashion so you're trying to draw attention to it. Things like "Army of the Sambre-et-Meuse" should not generally be italicized (I think).
  • The text has "the archduke", "archduke charles" and "charles". Pick one! I strongly suggest using "Charles".
  • "threatened ambiguous but quite serious" = comma before "but"
  • "war on Austria. In this" - para break
  • "had been executed. The" - para break
  • "into worse chaos. From 1793 to" - para break
  • "but the thin white line" - appears to be editorializing, or is this a term people use like "thin red line"? If so it needs explaination, if not, removal.
  • "the old mountains created dark shadows on the horizon" - aren't all mountains old? And don't they all create dark shadows on the horizon? This should just be removed, this isn't a gothic horror novel.
  • "of Bavaria and Prussia. The governance" - para break.
  • "such as Württemberg. When viewed on a map" - para break. and likely better placed above, just before "The governance"
  • "by Strasbourg, and Hüningen, by Basel" - trailing comma - missing text or just typo?
  • "theater of war. Jean" - para break
  • "Germany. By the spring of 1796" - para break
  • "Knowing that the French planned" - would this not be better placed directly after "In a decree"? this has to do with generalities, not the specifics that follow.
  • "southern France. The First French" - and it seems this very interesting statement should be the last statement in Background (see below)
  • "Switzerland. The original" - para break
  • "districts of the Empire. In Spring 1796" - para break
  • "Archduke Charles withdrew the Austrian forces from the Rhine's west bank" - soooo, this was the whole French plan right? If so, it appears they have at this point a major success, and I think that deserves being called out.
  • "Afterward the duke became a harsh critic" - which duke, Württemberg? Say that.
  • "reapportioned" - jargon, repositioned? redistributed?
  • "ammunition wagons.[26] Moreau reinforced" - para break
  • "three field pieces.[31] By this time Archduke " - para break
  • "exit from the war and mid-July, Moreau's army" - "and by mid-July"
  • "Jourdan lost no time in recrossing the Rhine at Neuwied" - I am not clear if this was part of the plan or not? In any event, it seems to have had the right outcome by drawing Charles north?
  • "Similarly, though, Moreau and Jourdan faced similar" - too many "similar"
  • "3,000 men.[36] In the north" - para break
  • "to observe Charles.[48] South of the " - para break
  • "Sambre-et-Meuse. In the Battle of Amberg" - para break
  • "the 20th Moreau" - missing comma
  • "On that day Moreau sent Jourdan a misleading message vowing to closely follow Charles" - why? this is an interesting statement yet there's no explanation of what happened here.
  • "case of retreat. Anticipating Jourdan's move" - para break
  • "Over the next few days, Jourdan's" - should be above the summary table.
  • "Instead of burning the bridge, Petrasch's men had plundered the French camp" - how are these two statements connected by "instead"? The bridge is not mentioned anywhere else, were they supposed to burn it and failed to? Or is it more like "Petrasch's men did not burn the bridge, but did plunder..." Using "instead" suggests there is a default actiion here, or an either/or situation.
  • "Moreau's trains took" - baggage trains, and link to it - the average reader will not be familiar with this concept
  • "troops in the theater. Nevertheless, Napoleon" - para break
  • "eastward towards Austria. After a brief campaign" - para break
Less minor:
  • I find the entire first paragraph of the Background section quite confusing. It covers many topics that should be in separate paragraphs, and makes many statements that call for a deeper understanding that is not explained in the text. For instance...
    • The text assumes we understand why France declared war on Austria, but this is not at all clear to me. Why not the HRE? Or both? The statement immediately prior is about French émigrés, but I don't think that is directly responsible for war on Austria, unless there is some connection that's not mentioned. It appears that they declared largely as the result of Pilnitz, but given that was signed in Germany, why did they declare against Austria instead? I think this needs some explanation, and I would suggest taking the paragraph apart and rebuilding it.
    • "The Reign of Terror plunged French" - this statement just sort of floats there - was this due to the unrest, or part of it?
    • "material support. After April 1796" - how was it paid before then? I assume paper, but the following text could be read to suggest they weren't being paid at all. And for the modern reader, who may never see paper money let alone metal, it is not clear why paper money would be an issue - assuming that is the issue.
    • "The French commanders understood" - again, this statement is just kind of floating. It doesn't seem to have anything directly to do with the preceding statements, it's not clear how the two parts connect through the "furthermore", and the last part seems to precede the events described above it. At a minimum, this should be two separate sentences, but I suspect they should be part of their own paragraph explaining why the French wanted to enter Germany? See below also..
  • Likewise, the geography section needs work.
    • I cannot understand the purpose of the first paragraph of the Geography section. Much of it is just trivia which has nothing to do with the topic of this article and simply confuses the reader. As some (most?) of these sections of the Rhine do not come into the article at all, they should either be brief or removed.
    • The second paragraph does seem to be more useful in terms of explaining that a crossing could be difficult, but again includes details that don't seem germane to the topic, especially as some take place decades or even centuries later. If the goal is to describe the Rhine at the time and place of the topic being discussed, then it should describe the Rhine at the time and place of the topic being discussed.
    • This section fails to mention that the French were already across the Rhine, and a description of the area around the bridgehead would seem useful.
    • And as only the opening parts of the battle take place on or near the river, and that the rest range over the greater part of southern Germany, some description of the interior seems like a good idea.
  • "The Battle of Neresheim on 11 August" - this is the turning point, so it should be above the summary table! Generally, tables should be at the end of their sections.
  • "Moreau offered Charles an armistice" - this should be an entirely different section, perhaps "armistice"
  • Commentary should be after Aftermath in order to keep the article flowing chronologically

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a *few* more, but we've hit the main ones. I was hoping to do this this week but a nasty dose of norovirus put a crimp in my plans. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OH NO, norovirus is definitely bad.  :( Feel better! and ping me when you get to it! Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'm back @Auntieruth55:. Here we go...
Geography - this still needs work. There's a lot of detail in here that has nothing to do with this article. From what I can see, the armies involved were all camped well north of Basel, so the entire description above "At Basel" should be removed IMHO. The rest appears to describe only the portion faced by Moreau, and unless I'm reading it wrong, there's no description of the area around Jourdan. And finally, all of this focusses solely on the river, which is important only for a section of the article. There's no description of the overall area. I'd be happy to take a whack at this myself. done
French organization - I've broken this up further and made some minor re-arrangements. However, I'm curious about the "led Moreau's far right wing" part. This addds a level of detail that I'm not sure the article needs, given that the body is about their movements. Further, there's no corresponding section for Jourdan's disposition. I'd suggest just removing this. done
"Over the next few days" - should this be above the table? It seems to talk about events that are about half way into the table, not after all of it. done
That's about it! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The entire right wing of Moreau's army was camped on the French side at Basel/Huningen. Crossed at Huningen and proceeded east. The point of including this info about the Rhine is that it provide the German states with a clear defensive (or offensive) barrier. I'll move the"over the next few days...", but I think the remainder should stay. auntieruth (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: I've re read what you tweaked, and I'm fine with it. I moved the bit on the far right wing to a note. auntieruth (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz:, Maury, if there are no further revisions, does this mean support? If so, would you change "comments" to "support"....auntieruth (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still have problems with the Geography section, but at this point I'm in the midst of a major new article so I don't have time to fix this. So support. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked it some more. Hope it's clearer. auntieruth (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Iazyges[edit]

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "ideally capturing the city and forcing the Holy Roman Emperor into a surrender and acceptance of French Revolutionary ideals." May wish to change this to:
    "ideally capturing the city and forcing the Holy Roman Emperor into a surrender, and Austria into acceptance of French Revolutionary ideals.", unless this is meant to imply that the Holy Roman Emperor was to be kept on as ruler in event of French Victory, which seems unlikely due to Napoleon's (somewhat ironic) love of nepotism.
  • "any declaration of war on the Habsburgs, who were Holy Roman Emperors, brought all of the Holy Roman Empire into war." was this one sided mutual defence inherent in being Emperor of HRE, or did the Habsburgs force the issue/call in favors?
  • "whose principal qualifications may have been their loyalty to the Revolution instead their military acumen." change to:
    "whose principal qualifications may have been their loyalty to the Revolution rather than their military acumen."
  • Not a suggestion, but I'd like to congratulate you on your "Political terrain" section; its very well developed and organized (something many or even most articles about HRE organization lack.)
  • "numbered 63,000, including reserves and garrisons." does the "including" apply to both armies, or merely Napolean's? If it is both, I'd recommend adding "both numbers" in front of "including".
  • That is all my comments; happy to support as is. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

SMS Braunschweig[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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

Toolbox

Another one of my German battleship articles (we're nearing the end!) up for A-class review. This ship saw action in World War I at the Battle of the Gulf of Riga, but otherwise had a fairly quiet career that spanned almost 30 years (in the Imperial and Weimar navies). As always, thanks to those who review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments[edit]

  • No DABs
  • Lots of duplicate links.
    • While you were out, the standard dupe link checker went haywire - see here for the improved tool. Parsecboy (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Break out propulsion and power sections with appropriate links in the infobox. And tell readers that they're steam engines. And add boilers with links.
    • Done
  • Hyphenate triple expansion
    • Done
  • Link main battery, secondary armament, flagship
    • Done
  • Need a cite for the source of the name.
    • Hildebrand will cover that, but I don't have the book on hand at the moment, so I can't get the exact page number - will get to this later.
  • in Helsinki, Finland and Gothenburg, Sweden commas after Finland and Sweden
    • Done
  • Explain the abbreviation VAdm
    • Done
  • Nothing else catches my eye on this pass.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Iazyges[edit]

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape. A few comments from me:

  • link Displacement (ship)
    • Done
  • is information available on the positioning of the TTs?
    • Will have to look, though my guess is that since it's not already in the class article, Groener and Conway's don't specify
  • the max and min belt armour differs between the body and infobox
    • Fixed
  • her range isn't provided or cited in the body
    • Added to the body
  • "named for the Duchy
    • Good catch
  • link ship commissioning
    • Done
  • "That yeahr"
    • Sturm got that
  • Ehrhard Schmidt should probably be just Schmidt on second occasion, per WP:SURNAME
    • Fixed
  • repetition "in the Baltic, owing to the threat from submarines in the Baltic" Trim?
    • Fixed
  • image review all ok, except for File:SMS Braunschweig NH 47693.tiff, which should probably have the NHHC tag
    • Done

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Peacemaker! Parsecboy (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, Nate, nice work. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "1921–22" --> "1921–1922" per WP:DATERANGE (in lead and postwar career section)
    • Fixed
  • "File:134 Kong Haakon VII forladende Tysk Panserskib Braunschweig - no-nb digifoto 20160209 00511 bldsa PK15135.jpg": would probably look more visually appealing if the border was cropped
    • Good idea - done
  • the infobox says the ship was scrapped in 1932, but I couldn't find 1932 mentioned specifically as the date in the article
    • Removed the year
  • Citation # 26 "Polmar & Noot, p. 44–45" --> "Polmar & Noot, pp. 44–45"
    • Good catch
  • the second entry (Gardiner) in the Further reading section is probably not necessary as it is already in the References
    • Fixed
  • there is a slight inconsistency in the hyphenation of the ISBN for the Dodson work (when compared to the other ISBNs)
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 AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Equestrian statue of Edward Horner[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

Equestrian statue of Edward Horner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is a little different to my memorial articles so far and I'm looking for some detailed feedback. Does it make sense, is the structure logical, is anything missing, does it leave you with any questions? What could be added or taken away? I'd really appreciate a few experienced eyes on this before I decide whether it's worth taking to FAC. I wrote this after working on Mells War Memorial and wasn't expecting to have more to write about this than the village's main war memorial. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hawkeye7
  • Wouldn't it have been more conventional to have one hoof raised, indicating that he dow?
    • I thought that was a myth? Our article says (unsourced) it's an urban legend. In any case, the serenity of the picture would have been quite deliberate knowing Lutyens.
      @HJ Mitchell: I would wager its more that it is a varying practice in some countries, i.e. some countries always follow the rule, some occasionally, some never. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Horners were able to secure Edward a transfer first to the Royal Horse Guards and then, in October 1914, to a cavalry regiment—the 18th (Queen Mary's Own) Hussars" The Royal Horse Guards (The Blues) was a cavalry regiment. (It's now part of the Household Cavalry. At ceremonies they were a blue jacket and a helmet with a scarlet plume.) The point is though that someone who was second lieutenant in the Royal Horse Guards could be a lieutenant in a regular cavalry regiment. Which basically tells me that the family was well-connected but not really well-connected.
    • They had the connections (a close family friend had Churchill's ear, Asquith was once a regular visitor and his son married their daughter), but they weren't incredibly wealthy by the standards of the landed gentry (something Edward had a reputation for forgetting!) so they were sort of second-class aristocrats.
  • "The 18th Hussars were at that time part of the 11th Reserve Cavalry, stationed at Tidworth Camp in Wiltshire for training, after which they were deployed to the Western Front in early 1915" The 18th Hussars went to the Western Front in August 1914. The 11th Reserve Cavalry was its affiliated training regiment back in England. He would have joined his regiment in 1915.
    • That's a useful detail, thanks.
  • It's really unusual for a British gravestone to have an individual inscription. In fact, I've never seen one. Suggest getting someone from WM-UK to drive round and get a photograph of it.
    • I didn't realise it was that unusual. I thought the CWGC did it on request (possibly requiring a fee, which might explain why it's not ubiquitous). I'm hoping to get to France next spring (and Mells sooner) for photos of this and various other things.
      Thruppence ha'penny per character, including spaces and punctuation, up to ₤1. The Australian government paid for up to 66 characters, which is why there are far more Australian graves with personal inscriptions. ("Love from Mum, Dad and Dave", "And also for your brother Jack, who drowned in the Darling", etc) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Hawkeye! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're away, Hawkeye7, but is this a support? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very much so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Carcharoth
  • In this sentence: "Sir Edwin Lutyens was among one of the most distinguished architects for war memorials in Britain." either the word 'among' or the phrase 'one of' is superfluous (is this sentence used in the other Lutyens memorial articles you have been working on?).
    • Must be a copy-editing error. I do use this sentence, or a variation of it, in most of the articles in the series but thankfully I haven't made this mistake in any of the others.
  • "He became a national figure" - I believe Lutyens was already a national figure (he was initially knighted in 1918). He may have become more famous, but he certainly attained his fame and renown through his non-memorial work as well, so saying that his memorial work made him a national figure may be slightly misleading and/or overstating the case.
    • What I meant to say was that he became a national figure in relation to war memorials, rather than that the memorials made him a national figure; I've tweaked it.
  • You say the statue was installed in 1920. Horner died in 1917. Is there no hint at all for a date when the family first approached Lutyens and gave him the commission? It would be a pity to have this part of the story missing if it has been recorded anywhere.
    • It is a pity, but there doesn't seem to be a record of it anywhere. The closest I've found is Jane Brown in Lutyens and the Edwardians, who says "Lady Horner summoned him" but doesn't give a date. We know he installed the wooden board in August 1919 because he wrote about it in a letter to his wife and it seems to be implied that the statue was underway by then but there's noting conclusive. I've found this repeatedly with Lutyens' memorials—details like this were either not recorded at all or they're a "by the way" in a letter to Emily. With the civic memorials, the local authority usually has a record of that sort of thing, but with a private memorial like this the only people who would know when it was commissioned would be the architect and the client and it leaves us frustrated if they didn't think to record it.
  • In the Colin Amery sentence, you say he "described Lutyens' works as "some of his finest memorials"". I am struggling to understand this - how can Lutyens' works be some of his finest memorials (finest examples of his memorials, or finest memorials to the memory of Lutyens)? That sentence seems to need tweaking in some way. Maybe what is meant is that his memorials are some of his finest works? (i.e. switch 'memorials' and 'works')
    • I've been back to the source and re-written the sentece slightly.
  • The fact that there was a family chapel there seems to imply this, but was this the church at which the family (and Horner himself) worshipped? That might be worth bringing out more. Frances (his mother) lived until 1940 and the father until 1927 that brings to mind them worshipping there in the presence of the memorial to their son. Having a local individual memorial erected by a family that could afford it was not uncommon, but what is uncommon is for the memorial to be a statue (most such memorials, usually erected by wealthier or aristocratic families, were plaques or tablets on the local church wall, but statues are rare - other examples I am aware of are Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart, Tom Kettle, and Willie Redmond, who were famous in other ways as well).
    • There's not a lot in the sources about their religious activities but their ancestors significantly rebuilt the church I think and multiple generations of Horners are buried there. Katharine converted to Catholicism and had a chapel built at the manor at some point. How much of that do you think is worth including?
      • The Horner connections to the church are worth highlighting, I think. I did find this which said that the Horners were all laid to rest in Mells. Katherine, Mark, Frances and John are all there in the church graveyard. Cicely (the elder daughter) is in Newmarket. Edward in France. This is getting a bit far afield, though! Carcharoth (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to know whether the cost of the memorial was more or less than would have been expected? i.e. Did Lutyens (and maybe Munnings) work for a reduced (or zero) fee given the family connections? i.e. Is the cost of "over £1000" (which seems a bit vague) about what would have been expected for a memorial of that type at that time?
    • As I recall, only one or two of the books actually give the cost at all and none specify the breakdown. It's possible that Lutyens waived or reduced his fee, and possible that Munnings did similar given that he hadn't yet established himself as a sculptor and the personal nature of the memorial, but nothing is recorded.
  • Is there a way to bring out the fact that having an expensive individual memorial erected like this to a fallen soldier was not a common occurrence? (e.g. compared to the others commemorated on the village war memorial, Asquith excepted).
    • Even Asquith doesn't have such an elaborate memorial. Lutyens did a few memorials to individuals but as you say this is exceptional. Can you think of a way to make this clear(er) in the article?
      • Not right now, but if I think of something I'll pop a note on the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic, on the general topic of CWGC grave inscriptions, it is not that unusual for there to be grave inscriptions. You will find examples in most cemeteries. I am not sure if there are any statistics available on that, though the CWGC are making the inscriptions more prominent now in their revamped website. And for those really interested in the topic, I would recommend the Epitaphs of the Great War website. It may be worth noting that the same epitaph was used on Raymond Asquith's grave. If this inscription was only used on those two graves, it may have been because of the close connection between the families. Other than that, the article looks in excellent shape. Carcharoth (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that they both have the same inscription. My guess is that it was suggested by the same person (Lady Horner was fond of poetry and literature and exchanged letters with literary friends, which is how the inscription on Mells War Memorial came about) but I haven't seen anything else that makes the connection. Thank you very much for your attention to detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Carcharoth, can you confirm whether you are supporting promotion to A-Class based on your review and Harry's responses? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, am happy to support. Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Iazyges[edit]

To come soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Equestrian statue of Edward Horner stands inside St Andrew's Church in the village of Mells in Somerset, south-western England. It was designed by the architect Sir Edwin Lutyens and the sculpture executed by Alfred Munnings. It is a memorial to Edward Horner, who died of wounds in the First World War." May wish to reorder this to:
    "The Equestrian statue of Edward Horner is a memorial to Edward Horner, who died of wounds in the First World War. It was designed by the architect Sir Edwin Lutyens and the sculpture executed by Alfred Munnings, it stands inside St Andrew's Church in the village of Mells in Somerset, south-western England."
  • "He served as a civilian war artist with Canadian cavalry during the war, having been judged unfit to fight due to lack of sight in one eye." Does this mean that he was assigned this duty by the government, due to his inability to serve with the uniformed troops, or he took it upon himself to do this?
  • That is all my comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iazyges, thank you very much for taking a look. I kind of wanted to avoid mentioning Edward Horner twice in the opening sentence, and to explain what and where it is. I don't want to bore the reader by telling them that the Equestrian statue of Edward Horner is a statue of Edward Horner, but if you think it needs reordering I'm happy to look at other options. I've added a little detail on Munnings; see what you think. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to Support this now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review all images appear to be appropriately licensed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 19 December 2017 (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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Gloucestershire Regiment[edit]

Nominator(s): Factotem (talk)

Gloucestershire Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article has been significantly expanded. A peer review was requested 3 weeks ago, but has not received much feedback. I'm now requesting an A-Class review to see if I can get more feedback in preparation for submission to FAC. FactotEm (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, looks pretty good to me. I have the following suggestions (largely minor points): AustralianRupert (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the Notes section, I think the capitalisation and punctuation could be improved slightly. For instance, "p148 Total casualties" (and similar constructions) should probably use a full stop or colon to separate the citation from the explanatory note. For example, "p148: total casualties" or "p148. Total casualties". I also suggest separating the number from the page with a full stop and space, e.g. "p. 148". This will be easier on the readers' eyes.
    checkY Punctuation added. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the References, I believe we generally omit "Ltd" from the publishers
    checkY "Ltd" removed. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the References, "Mossman, Billy C" probably should have full stop after "C" for consistency
    checkY FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the References, some use publisher locations and some don't. For example, compare Mossman with Salmon
    checkY Only two sources had location information, so I removed them for consistency and on the assumption that this info is not mandatory. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Daniell xii" --> "Daniell p. xii"?
    checkY Done. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • watch out for overlink, here are a few examples: Militia (Great Britain), Volunter Force (Great Britain), Battle of the Somme, Battle of St Quentin Canal, Second World War,
    checkY Removed those listed above, will check for more later. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just run a dup-link checker, and it has not identified any further cases. FactotEm (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the link for Battle of Cambrai is a dab link here (and should be adjusted): "In early December, during the Battle of Cambrai, a heavy..."
    checkY Fixed. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • same as above for the link for Battle of Albert here: "...at La Boiselle during the Battle of Albert"
    checkY Fixed. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the grammar would be improved slightly with the use of definite articles (as you use them for some and not others. For instance "POW camp, 2nd Battalion..." but "became the 159th Regiment". As such, I would suggest "POW camp, the 2nd Battalion". Same same for other definitive units (e.g. "transferred to the 56th Independent Infantry Brigade")
    Question: The lack of the definite article is a conscious decision on my part, but I flip-flopped on its use for units throughout the writing of this article, and I'm still not sure. We don't use them for company level statements, as in "a 17-man patrol from C Company", and it seems to me it's equally wrong at the next level up. "2nd Battalion" is a proper name, and it seems as wrong to write "the 2nd Battalion went into action" as to write "the Factotem went into action". My writing "became the 159th Regiment" is an oversight on my part, but I do realise that I have not been totally consistent in the non-use of the definite article; I've left it out up to brigade level, but used it at division level. The sources vary in its use; Salmon tends to omit, Littlewood and Daniell not. So I don't know what's the right thing to do here. Is it a major fail in your opinion? FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    G'day, not a major fail, IMO, and I certainly wouldn't oppose over it, but it doesn't sound right to me. My argument is that we don't use the definite article for platoons or companies because they are not definitive. There are many sub units called "A Company" across an army and they hold no distinctive identity by themselves, but there is really only one 2nd Battalion, Gloucester Regiment, which is its proper name and which identifies it as a unique entity. So it would be "The 2nd Battalion assaulted the position" rather than "2nd Battalion assaulted the position". Same same for brigades and divisions etc (e.g. "The 16th Brigade was assigned to the 6th Division...). I wonder if dropping the definitive article is a more recent approach. If it is, maybe I'm getting old because I'm not a fan of that development ... but anyway, with that it's bed time ... Old Man Rupert shakes his fist at world, and retires for the night knowing that he will probably bump his head on the end of the bed and won't be able to get up in the morning... ;-) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    :D Thanks. That all makes sense. I do think it's a recent thing; Salmon was published in 2010, while Daniell was originally published in 1951, and Wyrell, who uses the definite article, was published in 1931. It sounds as wrong to me to use the definite article as it does to you to omit it, but I know that Keith-264, when he made some copy-edits, used it. I will leave it as is for now, but will think further on it, and if others feel it worth their time weighing in with opinions I'll go with the consensus. FactotEm (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Too easy. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Shed a tear at every edit, but checkY done. FactotEm (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Glosters' commanding officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Carne...": add full name on first mention
    checkY Done. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...addition of 'Chillianwallah', 'Goojerat', 'Punjaub', and 'Delhi 1857' to the list...": the MOS generally prefers double quote marks
    checkY Done. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "guns of 45 Field Regiment..." --> "guns of the 45th Field Regiment"
    See question above. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Done. FactotEm (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I appreciate the time and effort you give to help with this article. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Iazyges[edit]

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "amalgamated" in lede; you may wish to link to Wiki-dictionary, as amalgamated isn't the most common of terms.
    checkY Done. FactotEm (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1782, the British Army began linking foot regiments with counties for the purposes of recruitment." Is there a specific reason why, or did the British just make the decision? (i.e. were they pressing concerns of low numbers, or unloyal troops).
    To be honest, I don't know. The source simply says for the purposes of recruitment. I do know the army hated it at the time, and just over 200 years later, when the British ended the county-based association, it was none too pleased to lose it. FactotEm (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems odd to me that you avoid linking city names in the "Origin" section, but link them in later sections. Is their a good reason for this?
    Sorry. Not sure that I understand. I've searched, and I think the only city linked is Bristol, in the infobox, and that's something I just left in place, there before I started on this article. Generally I only link when there is something relevant to the topic, and, with a few exceptions, in this article it's pretty much only battles, individuals and military units. I don't even link to Gloucester. Can you point me to an example? FactotEm (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The regiment added 4 new battle honours to its colours: "Defence of Ladysmith"; "Relief of Kimberley"; "Paardeberg"; and "South Africa, 1899–1902"; the last of which was also awarded to the 1st and 2nd volunteer battalions." Are battle honors either a mix of city/location name and which action took place there, and sometimes just city name/location, based upon if multiple things happen there, or else if little of event (i.e. no major battle) occurs?
    As I understand it, the first two are actions, the second specific battle, and the last is a campaign honour. In the same way, the regiment received individual honours for battles fought in Burma in WWII, and also the campaign honour "Burma 1942 '44–45". FactotEm (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In mid-April, the under-strength battalion became so dispersed protecting demolition parties at oil installations around Yenangyaung and Chauk that when Bagot returned from hospital he was informed the battalion had ceased to exist." add a "while" between dispersed and protecting, and ", in effect," between had and ceased to exist.
    checkY. Added "while", but the source specifically says that Bagot "...was told that it had ceased to exist". FactotEm (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is all my comments; happy to support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Much appreciated. FactotEm (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

  • Just an observation: it seems the regiment has a dedicated Boer War memorial in Bristol ([1]), though interestingly not one from WWI
    Odd indeed, especially as one territorial and at least one new army battalion were raised in Bristol.
  • I notice you're not citing EA James' British Regiments 1914–18, which is my go-to source for key dates and engagements for regiments in WWI. I'd be happy to email you the relevant pages if you want. It might not contain anything new but it all helps to satisfy the completeness criteria at A-class and FAC (I hope you'll be taking the article that way when we're done here).
    That's very kind of you. Thanks. Yes, I'm hoping to get this through FAC. I bought both Westlake and McCarthy to find out the day to day movements, but I certainly would appreciate another source. I've enabled e-mail on my account.
  • Since the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment didn't last very long, is it worth mentioning in the lead that it was subsequently amalgamated into the Rifles?
    The Rifles were mentioned in the article when I started, but as a 'grandson' unit I did not consider it in itself relevant, and was concerned about the article length. However, I believe the Rifles in some way maintain the back badge tradition, so maybe the article can stand a sentence on that, but I need to root out a source. Bear with me please.
    On further thought, can I push back on this one? It's only marginally relevant, and logically this info would come after the regiment ceased to exist, but I really like ending on the statement about the regiment following its predecessors into history. Is this a problem? FactotEm (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • their baptism of fire came in 1899 during the Second Boer War Unless "baptism of fire" is the term used in the source, that phrase strikes me as editorialising
    checkY It's a fine line between engaging prose and editorialising, and I crossed it here. I've amended the wording.
  • I believe it's conventional to use a definite article with battalion numbers (eg, the 1st Battalion); this also avoids the problem of starting a sentence with a numeral, which is frowned upon.
    Fair enough. Looks like I'm in a minority of one here. I'll go through and add the definite article when I have a bit more time. Presumably the same applies to brigades, from which I've also omitted the definite article?
    checkY Swallowed my pride and made the necessary changes to battalion and brigade. FactotEm (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, sorry. Hadn't realised this was a bone of contention. I wouldn't have opposed over it but I do think it's better with the definite articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My response was a bit melodramatic. It's not contentious. I wasn't 100% sure myself, but thought stylistically it looks better without. You're 3 of 3 for preferring it with, so I'll go with the flow. FactotEm (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in echoes of the Battle of Alexandria Does the source make that connection or is that editorialising?
    The source does indeed make the connection; it says: "The Battalion had indeed repeated (though under modern conditions) that splendid incident at Alexandria in 1801 when they fought back-to-back...". Is that OK?
    And, as it turns out, a good catch. I had applied the "echoes of Alexandria" to the wrong battle. Fixed now. Thanks. FactotEm (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st Battalion moved with 1st Division to the south I'd clarify here that the division is a (significantly) superior formation of which the battalion is a part, lest someone unfamiliar with army structures mistake the meaning for a division of the regiment.
    checkY Amended the wording to say 1st Division moved..., and 1st Battalion participated...
  • "a chronicle, serious and humorous, of the Battalion while serving with the British Expeditionary Force" We need a reference right after a quote, and the quote needs to be attributed—is that the paper's description of itself or an historian's description of it? I think both of those requirements are in MOS:QUOTE.
    Can you bear with me on this one? Having source problems. The Gloucestershire Live source is now dead and not in the archive, and I accessed F.W. Harvey's book via Google Books previews, which is no longer offering previews. The IWM source does actually state that text, but I suspect that's not enough to verify at as quote. I may have to recast this section, or even remove it entirely, which would be a shame. That was the journal's own description of itself, BTW.
    A compilation was published just after the war, see [2], which has those words in the title. Would that do? A modern day reprint is also available, but that's a Lulu self-published version, which rules it out, I believe, as a reliable source.
    checkY OK. The gazette was published after the war as a compilation, the title of which includes those words. I've rewritten the section to say that, dispensed with the quote and removed the deadlink. Hope that addresses this issue now. FactotEm (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's as far as as the Second World War section for now. This is really excellent—interesting and very well written. I'll be back with more comments in a day or so. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the time and effort you've spent so far, especially given the length of this article. I'm dead chuffed that you found it well written. Thank you! FactotEm (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the threat of invasion loomed the link there to Operation Sea Lion is a bit of an Easter egg.
    checkY Fixed. FactotEm (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • bitter recriminations between the brigadier of the 26th Brigade and the 10th Battalion's commanding officer Is there anything more to say about this incident? Do we at least have the names of the officers involved so that readers could look them up?
    checkY Done. FactotEm (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's by no means compulsory but I usually to prefer to include books' subtitles in the bibliography to give the unfamiliar reader an idea of what the book covers.
    checkY Done. FactotEm (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Outstanding work. I've sent you an email about James. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. FactotEm (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, references:

  • Be consistent in whether you use locations in book citations (you'll get less hassle at FAC with them, but they're not essential)
    AustralianRupert mentioned this as well, and because I couldn't find the location info for all publishers, I removed that info from all. FactotEm (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use either "The Naval & Military Press" or "Naval & Military" but be consistent
    checkY Done. FactotEm (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise with "Pen and Sword" versus "Pen & Sword"
    checkY Done. FactotEm (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in hyphenating ISBNs (you currently have a mix of after the prefix and throughout)
    Is there a rule that says they must be hyphenated? The only info I have is what is printed in the book or on Google Books/Amazon. Some of them are only hyphenated after the 978 prefix, so can I just remove the other hyphens and make them all consistent with the format 978-0750941723, for example? FactotEm (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there's no rule. As far as I know the number works no matter where you put the hyphens, or if you omit them altogether as I usually do. The only thing that's important for our purposes is that you're consistent (hyphenate after the prefix only, throughout, or not at all, but do the same withal your ISBNs). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
    checkY Done. FactotEm (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in using ISBN-13s or ISBN-10s (even most older books will have an ISBN-13, Google Books can help with that; if they don't then you can get away with using the 10)
    I can't find the ISBN-13 for ED Harvey's The Imjin Roll, which I have to leave as 0952959763, but all the rest have ISBN-13s now. FactotEm (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in citing the Soldiers of Gloucestershire Museum (see, or example, footnotes 28 and 31)
    Other than the access date, I don't see any inconsistency. Should they all have the same access date? FactotEm (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no, don't worry about the access dates. It's entirely possible I'm going insane. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For FAC, you might need to have an answer ready if somebody asks you why gloshistory.org.uk, angloboerwar.com, drillhalls.org, The Long Long Trail, remembering.org.uk, and regiments.org are reliable sources. I'm not sure about those sites in particular but I know some of those sorts of sites are run by hobbyists and wouldn't be considered reliable sources for our purposes.
    Where possible I've resourced the info to books, or edited to remove the need for them. I've kept two chunks of info sourced to The Long Long Trail and regiments.org because I think they do add value and can't find the info anywhere else. I'll see how they fare at FAC. FactotEm (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

  • File:Soldier of 28th regiment 1742.jpg: if the work originates from the 18th century it's clearly PD but you need some sort of proof of that (also I wasn't able to find it at the source given)
  • File:Gloucestershire Regimental Colours.jpg: Fair use is probably justified but the rationale needs fleshing out a little; I wonder if this is replaceable with a photo of the colours laid up somewhere?
  • File:Lieutenant FW Harvey DCM.jpg: I verified the OTRS ticket myself (and despaired at the hoops we make people jump through to upload something that should obviously be out of copyright)

Otherwise, images are all in order. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll get to work on that first image. The colours image I have concerns about myself. I messaged the uploader a day or so ago asking about it, but from my understanding of fair use, which is a pixel above non-existent, the laid up colours image is a PD alternative that torpedoes any fair use rationale. Still waiting on a response. In the meantime I'll research fair use rationales a little more and see if I can come up with some text. FactotEm (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I was skimming the list with a view to proposing a few reviews for closure but ended up doing image reviews! This is probably good to go once the images are sorted (though obviously it'll be another coordinator who makes the decision). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found the source for File:Soldier of 28th regiment 1742.jpg and confirmation that it is PD, and updated the commons description to that effect. FactotEm (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re: File:Gloucestershire Regimental Colours.jpg, I dug some more into fair use, and I don't think I can come up with anything satisfactory. The uploader appears to be active only at weekends, but was not last active last weekend. I will leave it until next Monday, and if there's still no response I will remove the image from the article. Hope that's OK. FactotEm (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it were up to me, I'd just remove it, then the images are all good and this can be listed for closing. Though the more I think about it, the colours might be in the public domain anyway. If they're crown copyright, that expires after 50 years, and they're a composite of various other images which are likely to be much older anyway. @Nikkimaria: Could you offer any advice? We're talking about File:Gloucestershire Regimental Colours.jpg. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would need more information - when were the colours designed, to what extent are they derivative of earlier works? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The person who uploaded the image and added it to the article is, according to a notice on their user page, only active at weekends, but since 4 December he has only been active for less then 10 minutes on 13 Dec. to do some maintenance reverts only. I'll give it a few hours more, and if there's still no response from him, I'll remove the image from the article. FactotEm (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the image now. FactotEm (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2017 (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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

British logistics in the Falklands War[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

British logistics in the Falklands War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article has been around for a long time, but I expanded it last week. I believe that it now meets our criteria for A class. The Falklands War was unusual in that it was a full-scale conventional war in the late 20th century that was fought between two regional powers thousands of miles apart. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Comments mainly related to criteria A4

General

  • On unit symbols, does MOS:UNITSYMBOLS apply to weaponry? I've only ever seen 105mm, 81mm etc etc in the sources, and 105 mm just looks odd.
    @WP:MILHIST coordinators: There's nothing in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The expectation I've always come across (in ACRs and FACs over the last 8 or 9 years) is that articles will follow Wiki's MoS, regardless of what specialty sources use. There should generally be a good reason to not follow the MoS, and the argument that sources follow a different style is not a good one. Parsecboy (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with Parsecboy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My misunderstanding. I didn't appreciate the distinction between ammunition, which is what is referred to in this article, and weaponry. FactotEm (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Background

1st para

  • The British government had already taken some action. On 29 March, the submarine HMS Spartan was ordered to sail for the South Atlantic. Reads like there is a link between the Argentine invasion and Spartan's departure on 29 March, but next para says that intel of the invasion was first received on 31 March.
    checkY There had been rising tensions since Argentine scrap metal merchants raised the Argentine flag at South Georgia Island on 19 March. Added a sentence to this effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentence, The tanker RFA Appleleaf...[joined] Endurance and Appleleaf???
    checkY Should be Fort Austin Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2nd para

  • The Commander-in-Chief Fleet, Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse, was placed in command of Task Force 317, with overall responsibility for the operation, codenamed Operation Corporate, was based at Northwood Headquarters. Too many commas and two "was" statements. Maybe better written as something like: "Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse, Commander-in-Chief Fleet at Northwood Headquarters, commanded Task Force 317 with overall responsibility for the operation, which was codenamed Operation Corporate."
  • Are "Air Component" and "Land Component" proper nouns? If not, they should not be capitalised. "Commander" after "Land Component" should certainly not be capitalised.
    checkY De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to know that Commodore Michael Clapp was "Commodore (Amphibious Warfare) (COMAW)"? Adding his position makes that clause very confusing, and positions aren't given for Curtiss, Moore, or Woodward.
    checkY Fair enough. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe make ...and Brigadier Julian Thompson's 3rd Commando Brigade formed the landing force (TG 317.1). a separate sentence. All previous clauses detail appointments, while this last clause includes some detail of the force as well (3rd Commando Brigade). Alternatively maybe just state "...and Brigadier Julian commanded the landing component (TG 317.1)."
    checkY Done, but I now have to mention the 3rd Commando Brigade below. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amphibious

1st para

  • RFA Sir Tristram was in Belize, but could meet up with the fleet on its way south; but RFA Sir Bedivere was in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and would not be immediately available. I think ""RFA Sir Tristram was in Belize, and could meet up..." would read better, considering there is another "but" shortly after.
  •  Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2nd para

  • ...or to carry passengers who had already booked voyages. Might be better as "...or to meet their existing booking obligations" or similar. When you later say that ships were allowed to be requisitioned along with anything on board I had visions of OAPs on SAGA cruises suddenly being diverted to the South Atlantic.
  •  Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...a practice known to have been used by King Richard I in 1189 for the Third Crusade... Is this necessary? I think the unusual nature of the situation is just as well conveyed simply by saying "a practice last exercised during the Suez Crisis in 1956."
  •  Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3rd para

  • During the Falklands War they carried 100,000 long tons (100,000 t) tons of freight, 95 aircraft, 9,000 personnel, and 400,000 long tons (410,000 t) of fuel. "transported" instead of "carried" might be more accurate?
    No. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4th para

  • The choice was quickly narrowed to P&O's 44,807-gross-register-ton (126,880 m3) SS Canberra. It's not a choice if there's only one option.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conversions

2nd para

  • The conversion of Atlantic Conveyor at Devonport required the removal of 500 tie down points for containers from her deck; adding a landing pad for helicopters and Hawker Siddeley Harriers; installing UHF radio equipment and satellite communications; adding accommodation for 122 men; installing a liquid oxygen tank; cutting additional hatches; and modifying the stern doors. Any reason for the semi-colons? Wouldn't commas do the job just as well?
    checkY Replaced semicolons with commas
  • Some 17 ships were fitted with helicopter landing pads. On Canberra and Queen Elizabeth 2, the area around the swimming pool was used, as it had been designed to hold the weight of 70 to 100 long tons (71 to 102 t) of water. This could use a semi-colon instead of a period after "landing pads" IF you're saying that the pool on Canberra and QE2 was converted to landing pads. If not, then the 2nd sentence doesn't make clear what the pool areas were used for.
 Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ascension

2nd para

  • This rapidly declined to 700,000 US gallons (2,600,000 l) on 19 April, and then 12,000 US gallons (45,000 l) on 25 April when a supply tanker with 2.4 million US gallons (9,100,000 l) commenced replenishment. Not clear what exactly rapidly declined here. I think you actually mean that of the 950,000 they let the Brits have, 250,000 was used by 19 April, and a week later only 12,000 gallons of the original 950,000 was left, but the way it's written suggests that the Americans reduced the amount of fuel they were prepared to let the Brits have.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Para

  • This far exceeded the capacity of the island's water supply, and McQueen instituted draconian measures to limit numbers. Did he restrict the numbers of people allowed on Ascension? The logical measure would be to limit water consumption.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4th Para

  • Not intended for long cruises, Canberra's endurance was 27 days at 18.5 knots (34.3 km/h; 21.3 mph). This sentence seems to be just dropped in there, and does not seem to have any relevance to the rest of the para.
    checkY Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over the beach

3rd para

  • You introduce "Red Beach" without further explanation until 2 paras later. Maybe better to just say "in the beachhead", as that is introduced earlier in the para.
  • {done}} Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

7th para

  • Commander Rick Jolly brought the Headquarters of the Medical Squadron of the Commando Logistics Regiment and No. 2 Surgical Support Team ashore from Canberra, No. 1 Medical Troop from Sir Galahad, and the Parachute Clearing Troop from Norland. Difficult sentence. Maybe split it up? Certainly the first part might be better written "Commander Rick Jolly brought the Medical Squadron Headquarters of the Commando Logistics Regiment..." to eliminate of..of.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

8th para

  • The Harriers of No. 1 Squadron RAF had already been transferred to Hermes,[102] One Wessex of 848 Naval Air Squadron had already flown ashore, and a Chinook of No. 18 Squadron RAF was in the air at the time; but three Chinook and six Wessex helicopters were lost. I think you could usefully link this to the preceding narrative by beginning the sentence "Of its cargo, the Harriers..."
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lone surviving Chinook... Makes it sound like the Chinook was saved from the Atlantic Conveyor, but you already stated that nothing could be salvaged. Maybe better to say "The task force's only remaining Chinook..." or similar?
    It already says that one Chinook was in the air. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and went on to serve in the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan. Interesting, but is it relevant? Maybe this info is better as a note in the cite?
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over the mountains

1st para

  • ... for there were no relief crews for the landing craft or helicopters. The use of "for" to mean "because" stood out to me as a bit ye olde English. I don't think it's a problem in itself, except that there's another "for" soon after, so maybe "due to no relief crews being available for the landing craft..." is better?
  • Nor could the helicopters operate at night. Four Sea Kings had night vision equipment, but these were reserved for night operations. To allow the crews to rest, and necessary aircraft maintenance to be performed, they were not employed during the day. All wrong. The second sentence is nonsensical, and contradicts the first. Maybe better written: "Only four helicopters were equipped with night vision equipment and could operate at night, and for reasons of crew rest and maintenance these were not allowed to operate during the day." or similar.
    checkY Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...which left six Sea Kings and five Wessex helicopters available for logistical and tactical missions. What about the Chinook mentioned in the previous para?
    checkY A Chinook is not a Sea King or a Wessex. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

5th para

  • The manoeuvre was repeated, successfully, the following night. Technically, the manoeuvre of the previous night was (I assume) take off - can't get through because of the blizzard - turn back, so that wouldn't have been what transpired the following night. Maybe "A second attempt the following night succeeded."?
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

6th para

  • "EFHE" is mentioned with no prior explanation of what it is.
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Hope this helps. FactotEm (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Much appreciated. I feared that there would be few reviewers for an article on such an obscure conflict. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment on A4

  • Section "Over the mountains", 9th para, 1st sentence Brigadier Tony Wilson's 5th Infantry Brigade reached Cumberland Bay off South Georgia Island on Queen Elizabeth 2 on 27 May. There's a bit of a geographic leap in the narrative here, and it took me a while to figure out that 5th Brigade was being shipped to the Falklands via South Georgia Island. Maybe needs clarifying a little? Similarly, the sentence The first ship to arrive at San Carlos was Atlantic Causeway... appears later in that para, long after the arrival of other ships at the Falklands is described. Maybe worth clarifying along the lines of "The first ship transporting 5th Brigade..." or similar?
    Added a sentence clarifying this, and moved the sentence about arriving at San Carlos. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions relating to criteria A2

  • The article ends quite suddenly. Do the logistics of running down the installations on Ascension and the Falklands, and returning troops and equipment back to the UK also have a place in this article?
    checkY Added a section on logistics in the immediate aftermath of the war. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    These were held for intelligence gathering, and to encourage Argentina to surrender, but it has been stated already that the Argentines had surrendered. FactotEm (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY The Argentine Forces in the Falkland Islands had surrendered. Hostilities continued. There was still one more combat operation, the reoccupation of the South Sandwich Islands. Tweaked the wording to make this a bit clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information about the logistical problem is spread throughout the article. Is it possible or worthwhile to add a section summarising the various figures in one place? Maybe a section at the beginning describing the size/components of the task force's fighting element, the supplies necessary to support that force, and the shipping necessary to transport it all, or at the end summarising the actual figures? FactotEm (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final question:

  • In the Aftermath section, I'm a little confuesed by the statement, A replacement for the lost Sir Galahad was ordered, and two roll-on roll-off ferries, RFA Sir Caradoc and a new Sir Galahad, were chartered while the new RFA Sir Galahad was built and Sir Tristram was repaired. A new Sir Galahad was chartered while a new RFA Sir Galahad was built? Two different ships with the same name?
    checkY My mistake. It should have been Sir Lamorak. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, having just re-read, happy to support. FactotEm (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard of the Falklands War before? It seems to be well-known only to people over a certain age. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Watched it on the news as it was happening. FactotEm (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Iazyges[edit]

Will get to soon. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • " According to Admiral Sandy Woodward, who commanded the British Royal Navy aircraft carrier group during the Falklands War, the British Army, Royal Air Force, the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State for Defence, as well as the United States Navy, all "initially suspected the whole operation was doomed."" What is the context of this quote? Is he saying that they all had, in their official projections, Britain failing to retake the islands, or else is he stating that this was the attitude, or unspoken opinion, of these groups?
    What he wrote was:
    "It should be recalled that there were several highly competent organizations which initially suspected the whole operation was doomed. In no particular order they were:
    (a) the United States Navy, which considered the recapture of the Falkland Islands to be a military impossibility;
    (b) the Ministry of Defence in Whitehall, which generally regarded the whole idea as too risky;
    (c) the Army, which considered it to be ill-advised, for lack of a "proper" advantage ratio in land force numbers;
    (d) the Royal Air Force, which seeing little role for themselves on account of the vast distances, and no chance of a navy surviving in the face of an air force, was inclined to agree;
    (e) the Secretary of State for Defence, Mr (now Sir) John Nott, since success would probably overturn the 1981 Defence Review."
    In my re-write of the article, the original article became the lead. (I often do this.) I vacillated over leaving this in, because the connection to logistics is not explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In some cases the owners preferred requisitioning, as it allowed them to break existing contracts." Is it known if any actually requested requisitioning, or is this just that some merely later stated they are glad that it was such?
    checkY. The source notes that some companies demanded requisitioning. P&O is the specifically mentioned in this context in the source, so I have added this to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fuel was a critical requirement of the task force, and for political reasons could not be obtained from South America or South Africa." Why? To me, this hints at either England being embarrassed at needing others help in this task, or else other countries supporting Argentina in their invasion, thus refusing to give fuel to England. Is either true?
    checkY The second is true. Added "Countries in South America, even if sympathetic, felt unable to offer overt support in a conflict involving a neighbouring state, while South Africa was an international pariah at the time due to its system of apartheid, and collaboration with its regime risked alienating other countries at a time when Britain needed all the support it could muster for its international diplomatic efforts." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ships were not combat loaded." May wish to explain what this means, but it isn't critical.
    checkY There is a whole article on the subject. Added "loaded in such a way that the weapons, ammunition, equipment and stores that the embarked troops would require on landing were immediately accessible." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Avro Vulcan bomber over Ascension Island on 18 May 1982 (Image caption)" May wish to add [an] in front of Avro Vulcan.
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stores were difficult to identify, as many were poorly labelled. This made it difficult to distinguish real ammunition from training ammunition." May wish to change to:
    "Stores were difficult to identify, as many were poorly labelled, making it difficult to distinguish real ammunition from training ammunition."
    checkY done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Five of the seven escorts were hit, HMS Ardent fatally." You may wish to make a listing of the seven escorts, even if it is not known which of the five were hit (other than HMS Ardent, obviously). (You may already have this, and I have just missed it, but I haven't been able to find it.)
    checkY Sure I can. I just thought it might have been a bit of a roll call. Changed to: "Of the seven escorts, five, HMS Antrim, Ardent, Argonaut, Brilliant and Broadsword, were hit; only HMS Plymouth and Yarmouth were unscathed. Of those hit, only Broadsword was fully capable of continuing the fight, and Ardent was ablaze and sinking."
  • That is all my comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your review! Note that I am going away tomorrow, and will not have access to my books to answer questions like I have today. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Support this nomination. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

  • Half were requisitioned; the rest were chartered Were the owners compensated for the requisitioning of their vessels? Is there any information on how much this cost? Were the crews requisitioned as well or were they volunteers?
    The crew are not "requisitioned"; they continue to serve on their ship. It is a form of forced charter. The company is paid for the ship, but not compensated for loss of business. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For transporting vehicles, a roll-on/roll-off vessel was preferred preferred to what—the previous ship mentioned is also RO/RO? Also, the link should go on the first mention.
    checkY Deleted previous message. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, Marchwood had only a single jetty "Unfortunately" is editorialising; suggest finding another word or removing it
    checkY deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerns about the vulnerability of the base led to three RAF Harriers being assigned for air defence How realistic were these concerns? Did the Argentinians have anything with the necessary range to be a serious threat to Ascension?
    checkY The threat was taken seriously. Added a bit about its source and nature. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fortunately, another 30 days' supply had been ordered on 17 April, and was on its way south See above about "unfortunately"
    checkY deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 45 Commando embarked in LCUs that took them from Ajax Bay to Port San Carlos. It then yomped to Douglas It doesn't matter much whether you use singular or plural but do it consistently.
    checkY Switched to "it". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • which it reached at 13:00 on 28 May, reached the Arroy Pedro River What sort of distances are they?
  • However, this was nowhere near as good as Teal Inlet "However" isn't adding a lot there.
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Staggering amounts of ammunition Editorialising?
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • An Argentine Military Cemetery was subsequently built "subsequently" is one of those words that's widely misused, and used to mean several different things; suggest changing to "later" unless you mean to imply that it was a consequence of the British cemetery being built, or better still replacing it with the date of construction.
    checkY Changed to later. I'll see if I can locate a source for the date. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have thought the Vulcan bombing runs (Operation Black Buck, and my what a sorry state that article is in!) and the complexities of refuelling the Vulcans en route would have merited a mention here.
    I had thought of it as an operational matter, but I'll look into it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything that could be said about the feasibility of the UK undertaking a similar operation today? It's the sort of thing the BBC and the tabloid press like to ruminate over when talking about defence cuts, particularly the current state of the Royal Navy (which is little more than a coastal defence force, at least until the new aircraft carriers have crews and, erm, aircraft).
    The war is quite obscure. It occurred while I was at school. In the wake of the war, a lot of books appeared which I snapped up. Since then there has been little interest, except for a brief resurgence in 2007 for the 25th anniversary. I presented a paper a conference on expeditionary warfare at which an unfortunate British historian had to present a paper on the Falklands War with Julian Thompson sitting in the front row glaring at him like the Duke of Wellington listening to a paper on the Battle of Waterloo. But most people have never heard of the war or, for that matter, the Falkland Islands.
    The downward trajectory of the British armed forces means that the Royal Navy is about half the size it was back then, and could not carry out the same operation today; but Argentina also has a much smaller force. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    While any commentary on the RN tends to reflect on its reduction in size and capabilities since 1982, I tend to agree that the topic isn't relevant to this article. It's also a complex issue: while the RN probably couldn't do what it did in 1982 any more, the small fortune which has been spent on developing and maintaining RAF Mount Pleasant as an air head and establishing various other facilities in the Falklands should mean that it doesn't need to. Nick-D (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A very nice piece of work. I don't know how you flit between such different subjects the way you do, but you do it impeccably! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you! Much appreciated, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Happy with the responses so happy to support. I would like to a sentence or two about the Vulcans but I certainly won't withhold support over it. Also, images are all appropriately licenced. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Limited comments by Nick-D[edit]

As there are already three substantive reviews above (all of which are either supports or seem to be near that point) I'll only post some limited comments. The closing coord should note that I contributed a very small amount of text to the article.

  • The lead is mainly focused on the challenges the British forces faced, and not how they were overcome: I'd suggest broadening it somewhat.
    Any idea what can be added? (Fell free to add.) I'm not good with leads. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the article provides good coverage of the efforts undertaken to sustain the post-war garrison in the Falklands and enable its reinforcement, did the British Government or Armed Forces make any other changes to the logistical capabilities of the military as a result of the lessons learned from the war? Nick-D (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Added a paragraph about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That looks good, so my comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2017 (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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

SMS Zähringen[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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

Toolbox

Another in the line of German battleships I've been working on - this one served in 3 German navies over the span of 40+ years, before ending up sunk as a blockship late in World War II. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle

  • The transition between the second and third paragraphs in the lede is confusing (both substance and grammar). I'd recommend something similar to the following: "By late 1915, crew shortages and the threat from British submarines forced the Kaiserliche Marine to withdraw older battleships from service, including the Wittelsbach class. [para break] Zähringen was relegated to the role of training ship before being converted into a target ship for torpedo training in 1917."
    • Works for me
  • "Zähringen's keel was laid on 21 November 1899, at Friedrich Krupp's Germaniawerft dockyard in Kiel. She was ordered under the contract name "E", as a new unit for the fleet." I think it makes more chronological sense for these two statements to be switched in order.
    • Good idea
  • "After the Russian battleship Slava attacked the Germans in the strait, forcing them to withdraw." This grammatically doesn't make sense.
    • Removed "after"
  • "The modification of the ship's propulsion system also proved to be a mistake, as the ship's speed was too low, and it hindered her maneuverability." Too low for what, exactly? For adequate maneuverability? Target practice purposes?
    • Hildebrand et. al. don't say, but I'd assume she was too slow to be an effective target (i.e., that she wasn't fast enough to be a challenging target)
  • "These experiences affected the conversion of Hessen, and neither were repeated" Would be helpful to specify "neither mistake was repeated" or similar.
    • Done
  • It would be helpful if the caption of the photo of Blitz specified that the ship served as the control vessel for Zähringen.

-Indy beetle (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • "Zähringen initially used as a training ship, and was converted into a target ship for" - I think you mean the period after it was removed from the line? If so, it should be "After its withdrawal, Zähringen was used as a training ship,..."
    • Fixed per Indy's comment above
  • "class battleships, but" - this is not a "but", you are moving onto an entirely new topic. That comma should be a period and the start of a new para.
    • The point was to juxtapose Hollmann's inability to secure stable funding with Tirpitz's success.
  • "six naval and six cylindrical" - I'm surprised that I have no idea what the difference would be. Is there an article you can link to that describes the difference between naval and cylindrical?
    • Linked the cylindrical boilers, but I'm not exactly sure on the naval boilers - they were manufactured by one of the government shipyards, but I've never seen a description of the boilers themselves. I'd assume they were also cylindrical boilers, but I don't know for sure (I think Gröner's point in differentiating the boilers was to identify the manufacturer, but again, I don't know for sure).
  • "Construction to 1904" - is there a particular reason you split these sections at 1904/05? There doesn't seem to be anything obvious in the text and they are a bit lopsided.
    • Mostly to balance the sections in terms of amount of content - splitting it chronologically in the middle would leave all of it save the last paragraph in the second subsection.
  • "returned to Bornholm that day.[23] Starting on 3 September" - para break
    • Done
  • "available for the operation" - what operation?
    • To provide the support the Army had requested
  • "that the Army was waging" - you don't have to say that
    • Removed
  • "with the operation. The Germans launched" - para break
    • Done
  • "Wilhelmshaven until 1926.[9] That year, the" - param break
    • See below
  • "subsidiary duties.[27] Zähringen" - para break
    • Done
  • "the United States Navy. Accordingly" - para break
    • This conflicts with the suggested break above at "Wilhelmshaven until 1926.[9] That year, the" - param break - I broke it where I thought it made most sense, let me know if that works for you.
  • "the conversion that year, " - remove this, we already know when it started
    • Reworded
  • "renamed Blitz.[36] Zähringen continued" - para break
    • Done
  • "The torpedo boat" - this should be higher in the text, perhaps as part of the description of the modifications
    • Done
  • "August 1942.[34] On 18 December 1944" - definitely para break here!
    • Disagree on this one - I don't see the value in 2- or 3- sentence paragraphs. To me, that breaks up the narrative.
    • Generally good; my only real concern is the mega-paragraphs made out of often unrelated sentences. Breaking these up into smaller and more focused statements will improve readability. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Iazyges[edit]

Will come soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Wittelsbachs were broadly similar to the Kaiser Friedrichs, carrying the same armament but with a more comprehensive armor layout" What is the usage of "comprehensive" here? Does it mean heavier (as in more complete in location) armor, or else does it mean more of the ship itself was armored?
    • The latter
  • "Zähringen was protected with Krupp armor. Her armored belt was 225 millimeters (8.9 in)" perhaps change this to:
    "Zähringen had an armoed belt that was made of Krupp armor, and 225 millimeters (8.9 in)..."
    All of the armor was Krupp, not just the belt.
  • "On 21 September 1910, Zähringen was decommissioned and her crew was transferred to the new dreadnought Rheinland," was the entirety of her crew moved to the Rheinland, as in no one else was moved anywhere else? More of a personal question than any needed change.
    • Yeah, this was common for the German Navy in this period - they were chronically short of crews, especially during the rapid expansion under Tirpitz - if you want the full story, Rheinland was commissioned for trials earlier that year, which lasted until 30 August. She then went to Wilhelmshaven, where most of her crew was transferred to SMS Von der Tann on 1 September. After the annual autumn maneuvers, Zähringen was decommissioned and her crew went to replace the men on Rheinland.
  • "advanced as far as the island of Utö on 9 May." perhaps "as far as the coast of the island of Utö", or something else of this effect, unless they docked at Utö.
    • I don't think the current wording implies they stopped at Utö.
  • Support. That is all my comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day Parsec, just a couple of minor suggestions from me, otherwise it looks GTG to me: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • this is slightly inconsistent: "powerplant was rated at 14,000 metric horsepower (13,808 ihp; 10,297 kW)" (body of article) v. "14,000 PS (13,810 ihp; 10,300 kW)" (infobox)
    • Good catch
  • SMS Elsass is overlinked
    • Fixed
  • suggest adding a translation for the title of the Ciupa work (as you have already done this for Grießmer)
    • Done
  • is the 1993 Hildebrand work in German? If so, for consistency I suggest adding the "| language = German" parameter for consistency

Image review from Harry[edit]

  • File:S.M. Linienschiff Zähringen.jpg How do we know he author did >70 years ago if we don't know who the author is? You need a source for the publication date; if that checks out then it's PD in the US but we still need to know about the country of origin (presumably Germany).
    • Added the author.
  • File:Radio control ship Blitz.tiff Date given is "circa 1928" but the copyright tag only applies to pre-1923 works.
    • That's not technically correct, as the template says "in most cases", but I've switched it to the {{pd-because}} for clarity.

Remaining images are all fine. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harry! Parsecboy (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with that. I can't promise somebody won't query your PD-because at FAC but I don't think it should be a dealbreaker. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The NHHC photos have gone through FAC several times now - Nikki doesn't have a problem with them, which is good enough for me. Parsecboy (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's good enough for Nikki it's good enough for me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:08, 12 December 2017 (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 Parsecboy (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Lancashire Fusiliers War Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

Lancashire Fusiliers War Memorial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Something a little more conventional after my slight departure with Edward Horner. This is one of a handful of war memorials Lutyens designed for individual regiments wishing to commemorate their losses in the First World War. As the title suggests, it's for the Lancashire Fusiliers, who suffered terribly at Gallipoli and went on to distinguish themselves in France and Belgium, though perhaps the main historical interest is Lutyens' family connection with the regiment. I initially doubted that this would be able to satisfy the comprehensiveness criteria, but after squeezing everything I can out of the sources, I think it's up to scratch for A-class and hopefully FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support but a couple of comments:

  • "the war had a profound affect" should be "effect"
  • "at the invitation of of Colonel Wike" should be only one "of"
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Hawkeye! I've fixed both of those typos. What did you think of the summary of the Lancashire Fusiliers' war service? I'm trying to convey (without delving into OR/synthesis) why they felt the need to commission a relatively grand memorial from a distinguished architect; do you think it manages that? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think its pretty good. The costly attack on W Beach was still remembered many years later. Out of 950 men in the Lancashire Fusiliers, 533 became casualties on 25 April 1915. Btw, "The 1st were transferred to France in March 1916" should be " The 1st was transferred to France in March 1916".

Couple of comments from me too:

  • Suggest avoiding repeat use of 'readily available' in last sentence of first paragraph of the background section.
    • Indeed.
  • Would suggest use of more images. The image in the article (and those on Commons) are not super-large, but large enough to crop in and focus on some of the decorative elements. There is a nifty little cropping tool that can be used on Commons. I can do some cropping to get some images, unless you have plans to visit this one and take some photographs? Some of the other angles have more interesting backgrounds (depends if you want a plain background to emphasise the memorial, or to get an image that shows some of the surrounding location).
    • The reason I've only gone with one so far is that all the ones we have on Commons are more or less the same, and I don't want to fill the article up with the same photo but taken from two steps to the left. Don't let me put you off cropping if you want to do some, but I'm planning to visit Bury in a couple of weeks to take photos. Hopefully the weather won't be too appalling and I'll manage to improve on what we have.
  • Bit off-topic, but the war memorial (from the men of HMS Eryalus) that you mention is in the church in Bury is among those photographed here. Lots of war memorials in that church.
    • That's a nice little website. I'm not surprised it's full of war memorials; it was the local church for the regimental depot. I'll try to get some photos of it when I'm in Bury.
  • Are there any images of the memorial in its location outside Wellington Barracks? And in its later location? There are a number of images around, and given that it is not possible to photograph it at those locations any more, fair use could be applied. There is a nice one I saw from 1922.
    • Skelton has one of it in the second location in appendix 1 (Skelton was writing before the latest move), and the Lutyens Trust page cited in the article has one in black and white of the memorial outside the HQ. I would be very surprised if such a photo survived an FfD if uploaded under a claim of fair use though.
  • There would have been other dignitaries present at the unveiling, surely? If reports exist, include mention of them?
    • I would imagine the colonel and the chaplain would have been present, and possibly local politicians like the mayor; it wasn't unusual to see lords lieutenant/deputy lieutenants at these things, but the only ones explicitly mentioned by the sources are the ones in the article.
  • You mention the motto 'OMNIA AUDAX' but don't say what this means.
    • Good point. Leave this with me.
  • Given that the flags are not unfurled (as they are stone), it might be worth finding suitable images to show what the flags look like, though I can see it may be difficult to find pictures that match exactly the design used on the memorial. The regimental flag appears to include the names of its campaigns (as they were at that time). Might be worth mentioning and expanding on that.
    • Regiments display their battle honours on their colours so I wouldn't have thought that was especially remarkable; the colours are laid up in the local church in Bury though. I'll try to get a photo when I'm there.
  • This memorial would have been rededicated after World War II, when the additional dates were added. Can you find reports on that, or is a date mentioned in your sources? (This bit about a post-WWII rededication should apply to nearly all Lutyens's war memorials.)
    • This is a common frustration. I've come up against this repeatedly: there's just nothing in the sources about the WWII additions. In a few cases (like Manchester), there was some significant addition to the WWI memorial like a peace garden, but where there wasn't, it can be next to impossible to find anything about a line being added to the epitaph.
  • Do you know the date when the "in subsequent campaigns" inscription was added?
    • I believe that was added when the memorial was adopted by the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers but I'll have to double check.
  • Do you know if the flagpoles are wooden or steel (and get replaced) or are they painted brown stone? (I am asking because this was a problem with others of Lutyen's memorials that had stone flags, such as Spalding War Memorial, where the poles were missing at one point.)
    • I don't know; I can look when I get to Bury (though that's arguably original research). Historic England's list entries are usually the best sources for design and materials but all this one says is "life-sized regimental flags executed in painted stone"; it doesn't say anything specifically about the poles.
      • Just FYI, as far as I could tell they're painted stone. I got close enough to see the paint but couldn't get high enough to actually touch them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all my comments for now. Carcharoth (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Carcharoth. There are a couple of things I need to check on and I'll get back to you by the end of the week. Thanks for the link to that website; looks like the church is well worth a visit in its own right. I very much appreciate you having a look! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: I've now been to Bury and managed to get some more photos (though a freezing, rainy day at the end of November doesn't make for optimal conditions); there's now a broader selection on Commons if you think it needs more or different images. As for "omnia audax", I know it's the regiment's motto and I know it literally means "all one", but I'm struggling to find the significance of the phrase to the Lancashire Fusiliers. Any ideas? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Omnia audax is usually translated as "Daring in all things" (yes, omnia is "all" as in omnibus, but audax is "daring" or "brave" as in "audacious"). It seems the Lancashire Fusiliers were granted the motto after the Second Boer War.[3]
Nice to see more pics. As you say, pity the weather wasn't better, but that can't be helped. Will try and look again later at cropping on the decorative elements if time, unless someone else does that. Carcharoth (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: I also have a photo of the drums and bugles that were bought with the remaining war memorial funds (they're on display in the Fusilier Museum, which was a nice surprise), though I'm pretty sure Thryduulf got better photos; I'll try to incorporate one into the article. If you fancy doing some cropping then by all means go ahead. I've added the translation and ordered a copy of that book. Any chance you're ready to support yet? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Support (sorry, forgot to say that). Carcharoth (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Iazyges[edit]

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Lancashire Fusiliers War Memorial is a First World War memorial originally dedicated to members of the Lancashire Fusiliers killed in that conflict' may wish to change to:
    "The Lancashire Fusiliers War Memorial is a First World War memorial, originally dedicated to members of the Lancashire Fusiliers who were killed during that conflict"
    I think that adds more words but doesn't actually clarify anything and we should emphasise concision. And they died very much in the war, not somewhere else while it was going on, which "during" could be read to imply.
  • The memorial was unveiled by Lieutenant General Sir Henry de Beauvoir De Lisle on 25 April 1922, using the novel method of pressing an electric button" what does this mean? The pushing of an electric button revealed this, but how? Basically what action was caused by the pushing of the button that revealed it. A raised drape? Raised the monument from underground?
    I assume it opened a curtain or pulled off a drape (I think we can rule out raising from underground ;) ) but the sources don't specify.
  • "The Lancashire Fusiliers (previously the 20th Regiment of Foot) was swelled by thousands" I may be wrong but I believe swelled should be swollen in this context.
    Wiktionary seems to suggest they're interchangeable. On the other hand, it makes no real difference, so  Done.
  • "The general gave a speech in which he referenced the Gallipoli landings and the "six VCs before breakfast"" You may wish to either add a "(VC)" to the earlier full mention of Victoria Cross, or else enumerate that they are one in the same in parentheses after this mention.
    • Done.
  • That is all my comments, happy to support as is. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PM[edit]

Great job as usual. Little stood out to me, a couple of minor things:

  • suggest linking Military colours, standards and guidons when you first mention the King's Colour, and the colour of the 1st Battalion is the Regimental Colour of the 1st Battalion.
  • The remaining inscriptions
  • images are all properly licensed.

That's it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you very much, PM! I've made both the changes you suggest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:34, 11 December 2017 (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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhoi Su-37[edit]

Nominator(s): --Sp33dyphil (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-class review again after having rewritten it. It's a short article, and any comment is welcomed. Regards, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Suggestions: G'day, I have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the infobox, the link to the Su-35 should be moved to the first mention
  • there appears to be a mix of US and British English variation, e.g. "supermaneuverability" (US) but "programme" (British)
    • checkY Should be British English. Changed to "supermanoeuvrability". --Sp33dyphil (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • this needs a ref: "This lesson was incorporated into the modernized Su-35, which made its first flight in February 2008."
  • is this a typo: "...lack of energy will means he.." (specifically "means" instead of "mean")?
  • "removal of canards, the design of which imposed a weight penalty on the design..." suggest tweaking to "removal of canards, which imposed a weight penalty on the design.." (to remove repetition of "design")
    • I know what you mean, and the phrase is referring to the canards; however, I'd like to make it clear that it's not referring to the removal of the canards. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • typo: "using the its flying test beds..."

Image review

  • File:Sukhoi_Su-37_at_Farnborough_1996_airshow.jpg: is that the licensing provided in the OTRS ticket? It's typically used only for text-based works. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I don't exactly understand your point. Are you saying the photo isn't licensed for use in an online article? Perhaps I can replace it with File:Sukhoi Su-37 (14260362128).jpg? --Sp33dyphil (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, at this point I'm wondering what exactly the OTRS ticket says about the licensing, because this one seems an odd choice and I know Commons was trying to move away from it - did the ticket specify this exact tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm unable to verify the the ticket as I wasn't the person who uploaded it. In addition, it seems like only someone who has an Wikimedia account could verify it. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Welcome back Phil, and well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Support The sentence ...the aircraft pitched up to 180 degrees and maintained the tail-first position for several seconds... merges two specific terms: "pitch up" (i.e. to pull the nose up), and "up to" (i.e. a maxium of), and I got confused as to what the sentence was actually saying. It's not helped by the preceding link of "Super Cobra" to "Pugachev's Cobra"; the two manoeuvers do not appear to be the same - Pugachev's manoeuver pitches up only as far as the vertical, i.e. 90 degrees. Maybe amend the previous sentence to say that the Super Cobra is a variation of Pugachev's Cobra, and this sentence to say that the aircraft pitched 180 degrees about, or something like that? Otherwise a nice, well-written article. Seems eminently A-worthy to me. FactotEm (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I've removed the piped link to Pugachev's Cobra and explained what the Super Cobra is as per your suggestion. I've also reworded the phrase about the 180-degree pitch up. Thanks, --Sp33dyphil (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still a little confused about the Super Cobra. ...the aircraft pitched up 180 degrees and maintained the tail-first position momentarily, which would theoretically allow the aircraft to fire a missile at a combat opponent. To me, "up" is around the 90 degree mark. 180 degrees means it flipped completely about, so that the aircraft travels tail first through the air. Is that what this manoeuvre is? Does it really end up flying tail first? And is it a flip, or more of a very tight loop? This doesn't affect the review, which I'm supporting. I'm just curious. FactotEm (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the book doesn't say that the aircraft travels tail-first through the air. The book also doesn't say whether it's a loop or a flip; I would think it's part of a tight loop (kulbit), since I can't imagine or have seen a fighter aircraft recovering to a normal attitude (forward level flight) after a 180-degree flip. Here's the passage from the book: "Piloted by Yevgeniy Frolov, the Su-37 stole the show at Farnborough International '96 in September - and with good reason, too. The Su-37 is capable of pitching up through 180° into a tail-first position and staying in that position long enough to fire a missile at a pursuing enemy fighter... The Super Cobra logically evolved into a 360° somersault...". So to me the missile firing at 180 degrees is an instantaneous thing–which is what the Super Cobra allows–rather than the phenomenon of the aircraft being able to fly tail-first. What do you think? --Sp33dyphil (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that this is really the place for an extended discussion - I'll take it to article talk. FactotEm (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting little article. Small for an A-class article, but looks fine. Good work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Phil, great to see you back here. Comments:

  • The decision was therefore made By whom? Try to avoid the passive voice when possible
  • However, critics have questioned "However" is a widely misused word and this one could easily be replaced with "although" or "nonetheless"
    • checkY Replaced "however" with "nonetheless". --Sp33dyphil (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the pilot notable enough that that red link is likely to turn blue in the foreseeable future?
  • The article originally had the links to the Russian articles, but Dank had them removed; I've removed the red link to Yuri Vashuk but kept the one for Yevgeni Frolov. --Sp33dyphil (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did the aircraft finally crash after the pilot ejected? Was there any damage or casualties on the ground?
  • Image review: only image is freely licenced and I verified the OTRS ticket (and yes, strange as it may seem, that is the licence specified in the ticket).

A nice little article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:05, 7 December 2017 (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 AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Waterloo Bay massacre[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Waterloo Bay massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is quite a different article from me, the story of the Waterloo Bay massacre or Elliston massacre, a fatal clash between settlers and Aboriginal Australians in late May 1849 on the cliffs of Waterloo Bay near Elliston, South Australia. I have worked pretty hard to ensure that the article takes a NPOV view of both the findings of historians and of the oral history of the Aboriginal people of the region, which I hope is borne out by the article. Over the years, a number of conflicting legends grew up around the massacre and the events that preceded it. A memorial to the massacre was dedicated at Waterloo Bay earlier this year. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I think that this might be the first A-class nomination for an article relating to the Australian frontier wars, so this is great to see. I have the following comments and suggestions:

  • The background section could be beefed up a bit to place this incident in the broader context of the frontier wars - eg, that this pattern was fairly common. I'd suggest making it clearer that the colonists simply took the land without the Indigenous owners agreeing to this or receiving any kind of compensation (something which was virtually unique in Australia).
  • "In May 2017 a memorial to the Waterloo Bay massacre was unveiled at Elliston" - do we know who commissioned the memorial (the ABC News story implies it was the local council) or how the issues raised regarding earlier memorial proposals were resolved? Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day Nick-D, thanks. I am planning on writing a few more articles on the frontier wars in SA, which I may eventually expand into a good topic. I have expanded the Background section to provide wider context, confirmed the council built the memorial, and found a more recent ABC News article indicating that there is still local discussion ongoing about whether it was a massacre or an "incident". Let me know what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Those changes look great, and I'm pleased to support this nomination Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Bluntly speaking, don't think that lead image gives non-Australians a good sense of where the place actually is - suggest pulling back the perspective a bit
  • Thanks for that, Nikkimaria, I hadn't thought about that. Have put a map of Australia at the top and moved the location map down.
  • Are there any contemporary illustrations available? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately not. Records are sparse at best, and I haven't been able to locate photographs of any of the protagonists. I will be travelling to that part of the state later this year, and will hopefully be able to get a photograph of the memorial then. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Hawkeye7
  • Have you thought of adding an infobox? (Say {{infobox civilian attack}}?
  • Why not just use {{Location map Australia}}? The map of SA is too large to see much detail anyway.
  • We should say "the Duke of Wellington" rather than "Lord Wellington".
  • You've overlinked Adelaide. (And do we really need to say that it was the colonial capital a second time?)
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Hawkeye7, I did consider an infobox, but wasn't sure it would add much, especially given the number of casualties is unknown. Re: the maps, I've added Adelaide to the location map rather than follow your suggestion. The other two points are addressed. Thanks for taking a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Massacre" is a term generally avoided on WP. If it's the term the sources use you should be fine, but be aware that it might come up if you take this to FAC.
  • It is used commonly, particularly more so recently with research.
  • five were captured, however Two problems here: first, "however" is generally frowned upon at FAC, and second it doesn't quite read right being used in the middle of the sentence like that, especially as the commas either side make it a subordinate clause. "Although" would probably work better here.
  • Changed to although and dropped the second comma
  • Is there something particularly attractive about this part of Australia? Given the vastness of Oz, it makes you wonder why there wasn't enough room for both the settlers and the natives.
  • Basically Aboriginal people are strongly spiritually connected to the country where they come from, and as settlement grew out from the towns, settlers systematically displaced the local Aboriginal people from their lands. So there was resistance.
  • I'd put the photo of the cliffs first rather than the map. It's more visually appealing and it helps the reader picture the location.
  • Done.
  • Whose quote is ""fanciful and sometimes wildly inaccurate fictionalising""?
  • Moved citation to clarify.
  • Photos of the memorial would be nice.
  • Definitely will be one before I put this up for FA.

Not a lot to criticise really. A nice article on an unusual topic. It can't have been easy to write with all the contradictory accounts! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harry. It took a while to thread it all together in a coherent way. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Happy to support. For what it's worth, I think it looks much better with the cliffs as the lead image. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Iazyges[edit]

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: G'day, this ACR has been listed for closing over at WP:MHCOORD. Before I close it, though, I just want to check if you still intend to provide some review comments, or if you are happy for it to be closed now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: I'm happy for it to be closed now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Too easy, I will close it now. Thanks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2017 (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 HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Project Emily[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

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

Toolbox

A now long-forgotten deployment of American-built Thor intermediate-range ballistic missiles in the United Kingdom between 1959 and 1963. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is a very interesting article on a fascinating topic - great work. I have the following comments:

  • " During the Cuban Missile Crisis, 59 of the missiles" - perhaps give the date here
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "requested a specification for a ballistic missile with 2,000-nautical-mile (3,700 km; 2,300 mi) range" - "requested a specification" is a bit unclear. Did he ask for such a missile to be designed, or did he want the requirements to be developed ahead of design work commencing?
    checkY The latter. The Operational requirement became OR.1139. Added a bit more, using your phrasing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks good. One of the enduring strange things about the Cold War nuclear programs was how bureaucratic they often were, except for when they weren't. The British nuclear weapons program seems to have ranged from arcane levels of Whitehall process-for-process sake to high farce (Peter Hennessy recounts bizarre stories such as the serious options for the PM to authorise the use of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s including ringing from a pay phone - for which change was always kept in his car - and using the The Automobile Association's radio network!). Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of getting into an arcane topic largely of interest to me, can the article discuss the status of the RAF bases which hosted missile sites? Were these all World War II-era airfields which the RAF had hung onto after the war? (and were they being used for any purpose, or were they reserve real estate?)
    checkY Added a paragraph on this to "Deployment". They were all WWII-era airfields which the RAF had hung onto after the war. Some were unused, others were used for various purposes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know anything about the war plans for these missiles? Did the British Government intend to fire them all at the USSR, and were they targeted at cities or military targets? (at roughly this time the V Bomber force was tasked mainly with attacking Soviet air defences with nuclear weapons to clear the way for American nuclear bombers)
    checkY Added: "Under the war plan that had gone into effect on 1 August 1962, the RAF's bombers and Thor missiles targeted 16 cities, 44 airfields, 10 air defence control centres and 20 IRBM sites." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do any sources discuss how realistic this deployment was given how vulnerable the UK was to nuclear attack and how long it took to fire the missiles? (eg, the famous Four-minute warning and British Government modelling which found that a small number of Hydrogen bombs would effectively destroy the country).
    This is discussed in the Termination section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest adding a photo of the preserved missile sites from those on Commons (eg, those at Category:RAF Harrington, Thor missile site - which aren't great, but show a relic of this activity).
    checkY added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 06:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

  • File:Thor loaded into C-133.jpg; The license tag is misplaced, please put into relevant section.
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:England_relief_location_map.jpg; The image looks, licensing is valid as well. But my only concern is the way the image has been placed in the article. It creates a big blank to the left of it. I would suggest to reduce the size, and make text flow across it.
    Making the image smaller makes it harder to read. If you make your screen wider, the image will slot in beside the table. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Iazyges[edit]

Will post soon. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "dispersed to 20 RAF air stations, as part of the UK nuclear deterrent." Wouldn't this be "UK's nuclear deterrent?", perhaps "British nuclear deterrent" would work better as well.
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to concerns over the buildup of Soviet missiles, US President Dwight D. Eisenhower met Prime Minister Harold Macmillan in Bermuda in March 1957 to explore the possibility of short-term deployment [of the Thor missiles] in the United Kingdom until more powerful intercontinental ballistic missiles were deployed."
    checkY Added. Also changed "more powerful" to "longer ranged" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the British government restarted its own development effort,[5] now codenamed High Explosive Research." by "now codenamed" does this mean it was not called H.E.R., and that is a modern term for the project? If so, is the original project name known?
    checkY The project was known as HER. The original, wartime project was Tube Alloys. Changed to "which was codenamed". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blue Streak was estimated to cost £70 million, with the United States paying 15 per cent" probably want to put [of this cost] at the end of this.
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The proposal to base USAF Thor squadrons in Britain was dropped on 12 October 1957." Is it known why this was done? Logistical issues? Political issues?
    checkY Added "in view of the British political opposition" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In October 2012 the former launch sites at RAF Harrington and RAF North Luffenham were granted listed status." Might want to expand upon this, explain how significant this is in England, etc.
    If I knew anything about it. And the listed building article doesn't tell me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is all my comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank for your review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Support promotion. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maury Markowitz[edit]

Support: Normally long paragraphs annoy me, but that's because when I see them they are normally a mix of unrelated topics. This article does not suffer from that problem, and I found the body really readable. My only concern is the alignment of the map, but I've asked over on the pump to see if there is a solution. Really liked this article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The pump says we should add "|float = center" to the map. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't understood the problem. I've made a change that I think will help. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 6 December 2017 (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 Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

German destroyer Z38[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

German destroyer Z38 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has passed a GAN, and I believe it meets all of the requirements for A class.Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by auntieruth[edit]

Comments: Support - good to go!

  • "the 4th Destroyer Flotilla.[13] In August" - insert para break here.

 Done

  • "and Z27.[15] On 22 October" - and here.

 Done

  • "and Z38 sail into the" - sailed?

 Done

  • "from Tanafjord.[21]On 22 January" - missing space, but do a para instead.

 Done

  • "mid-October. In December" - para break.

 Done

  • "while still beached.[32] On 8 Novembor" - and here, along with sp.

 Done

Other than that, not much to report. Reads fine and seems more than detailed enough. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • a citation should be added to the paragraph ending "From 28 April to 4 May she helped defend the Dievenow channel of the Oder river."

 Done

  • the final paragraph is quite long. I suggest splitting it

 Done

  • inconsistent spelling, "draft" v. "draught"

 Done

  • there are (albeit slight) inconsistencies in the specs in the infobox v. the body (e.g. "beam of 12 metres (39 ft)" v. "Beam: 12 m (39 ft 4 in; "70,000 shaft horsepower (52,000 kW)" v. "70,000 PS (51,000 kW; 69,000 shp)")"

 Done

  • "Z38 was fitted with a FuMO 21 on her bridge...": this needs a bit more clarification I feel. What is a FuMO 21? Is it a radar, or some other sensor?

 Done A radar; I am planning on writing an article for them if I can. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • the infobox says 7 x single 2 cm AA guns, but the body of the article says ten
 Done

Comments by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga[edit]

  • Lead and infobox;
    • and spent much of her life escorting escorting task forces; please fix the typo
    •  Done
    • or bombarding land forces -> and bombarding land forces; as this has already happened, there is no question of uncertainity
    •  Done
    • Put italics on "Kriegsmarine"
    •  Done
    • Put italics on "Germaniawerft"
    •  Done
    • Prose says the ship was commissioned on 20 March 1943; but infobox says that it was completed on 20 March 1943
      Kriegsmarine, and German navies in general, usually commissioned on completion date (or else simply considered completion to be automatic commissioning, although bigger, more impressive, ships like battleships were almost always commissioned) and prioritized the "completion" over "commissioning".
  • Section 1;
    • Link waterline, standard load, full load
    •  Done
    • The conversion template is inconsistently used; {{convert|6.6|m}} {{convert|4|m|ftin}}; any specific reason, if not please fix them to be consistent
    •  Done
    • No need conversion for the same count of units on second mention; 15-centimetre (5.9 in)
    •  Done
  • Section 2;
    • Italics on "Germaniawerft"
    •  Done
    • to help escort Lützow; "escort" itself gives the sense of help
    •  Done
    • Inconsistent usage of commas after date mentions; "In August 1943" "On 24 September" "On 22 October," "On 26 December," etc. Please chec this usage in the later paragraphs also
    •  Done
    • A comma needed after "On 25 December"
    •  Done
    • Z33, Z34 and Z38 -> Z33, Z34, and Z38,
    •  Done
    • Put italics on "Duke of York" and specify that it was a Royal Navy vessel
    •  Done
    • Please be consistent on the calling the ship; in some case it is referred as Z38, in some as "she"; "Z35, Z38, and T28 escorted the steamship" "she, Z43 and T28 bombarded these locations"
    •  Done
    • A comma after "Z43 and T28"
    •  Done
    • she was controlled by the German army, rather than the German navy; any reason
      Germany did little to no research on radar during war, despite entering with the best radars. Because of this, in the late war the Kriegsmarine couldn't function outside of the Baltic without getting obliterated by allied airplanes, so it kept them in the Baltic to provide gunfire support to Army. Because it effectively served as artillery rather than a ship, and army was always considered more important that navy, it was handed over to the army directly.
    • "German army" "German navy"; use German titles for consistency
    •  Done
    • Her German crew members remained
    •  Done
    • where it lay on the beach -> as it was laid on the beach
    •  Done
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 17:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I believe I have done all you have asked. Do you have any further comments or concerns? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support All my concerns have been addressed. Pinging Iazyges --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

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 Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Junayd of Aydın[edit]

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

Junayd of Aydın (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A biographical article about a colourful, ambitious, capable, and ruthless figure, who played a central role in the Ottoman Interregnum and whose career epitomizes the shifting allegiances and power struggles of the period. The article was considerably expanded and rewritten, and includes not only the main primary source (Doukas), but also the chief modern scholarly studies on the subject and period in the English language. I am nominating it for A-class as a step towards eventual FA nomination. Constantine ✍ 09:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up both maps
  • File:Anadolu_Beylikleri.png is sourced to a deleted page - what is the source of the data presented?
  • File:Tamerlan.jpg needs a US PD tag, as does File:II._Murat.jpg
  • File:Aydinid_beylik_area_map.svg: what is the source of the data presented? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nikkimaria! File:Anadolu_Beylikleri.png is sourced to two Turkish atlas, not to the deleted page. That simply was the original location in dewiki. "1-Koza Yayınları Tarih Atlası sf.42 2-Kanaat Yayınları Tarih Atlası sf.28" means "1) Koza Publications History Atlas p. 42, 2) Kanaat Publications History Atlas p. 28". File:Aydinid_beylik_area_map.svg is merely a representation of some localities with their Turkish and Greek names. There is no "data" as such that could be challenged for a source; the locations exist to this day, and the Greek names are both well-known and in actual use as recently as the 1920s. The other suggestions have been done. Constantine ✍ 20:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, just a couple of minor points from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • watch out for overlink, the duplicate link checker identified a couple of instances: Ottoman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Republic of Venice, Doukas (historian)
    • Hmmm, this is odd. I assume the tool has been changed some time recently, because it counts the links in the lede as well, which IIRC was not the case earlier. My understanding is that the lede and the main body of the article are to be regarded separately, especially when the article is a bit longer, and a term that occurs in the lede may re-occur only half-way through the main body... Most of the hits in the tool are precisely such cases where the duplicates are one in the lede and one in the main body. The couple of other instances have been fixed. Constantine ✍ 12:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • for Ref 1, why not present it with the author names like the other ones?
  • suggest providing a translation for the title of the Trapp and Beyer work
    • on both of these points: PLP is the common abbreviation of this work, and is always found so in literature, as it is a collective work where over a dozen scholars have collaborated. The citation uses the recommended format from the CD Version that I have, but may be a bit misleading; I have therefore expanded it to include all main contributors to the various volumes. On the name, a translation is provided in the link, and I think it a bit superfluous; I usually provide one for journal articles or works in non-Latin alphabet, where it is useful for the readers to understand what it is about, but the PLP is the standard reference work in the field. It would be like translating the Prosopographia Imperii Romani, the Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, or Le Monde. Constantine ✍ 12:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • No dramas. I disagree with your reasoning because I feel that it alienates the lay reader who won't recognise things like "27977. Τζινεήτ.", or understand why PLP is different to "Mélikoff" in the citations. Nevertheless, I'm not here to be prescriptive. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert::Any other suggestions? Unclear areas? Difficult prose? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not at this time, thank you. All the best and thank you for your efforts so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 G'day, great job on this article. I have a few comments:

  • Republic of Venice is still overlinked, as is Doukas in the Notes
  • no dabs or redirects
  • in the lead, should it be "in battle with Musa Çelebi"? Or some other explanation? Assassination?
  • "defect his cause" from? to?
  • "Sources about the period are many and come from many sources" is repetitive and possibly tautological. Could you rephrase?
  • are subashi and subassi the same word, meaning a type of governor? If so, consistency would help.
    • I cannot change it as it is a direct quote from the Italo-Latin; I did clarify that it is the Italian form of the title, however. Constantine ✍ 15:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • worth mentioning that Timur was Turco-Mongol for those that don't know
  • unless there is another Süleyman, Süleyman Çelebi should just be Süleyman after introducing him the first time
  • I'm not sure "Conversely..." is the right word here, as that would imply conflicting sources on who backed whom. In this case I suggest dropping the word
  • same as Süleyman with Mehmed and Mehmed I
  • suggest taking the sentence fragment beginning with "according to a different interpretation" and making it a sentence following this one
  • returned to Ayasoluk, Junayd
  • should it be "and the Gümlüoğlu family"?
  • "confront Mustafa. The two armies confronted" is a bit repetitive, perhaps "met"
  • thus Mustafa needs an initial cap
  • suggest "at this news" not "at these news"

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: In case you missed PM's comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks HJ Mitchell, I had indeed missed them. I will have a look at them later today. Constantine ✍ 10:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peacemaker67, and thanks for taking the time to review this. Sorry for the delay, it completely slipped off my radar. I've taken core of the points you raised. Any other comments, on style, comprehensibility, etc.? I am still a bit unsure about the balance of information on Junayd himself and of wider events, without which however his career is incomprehensible. Any suggestions for further improvement would be welcome. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 15:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: just a nudge to revisit when you time. Cheers, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder, Harry. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by Cinderella157

  • The article appears (to me) to be written in an editorial style rather than a more neutral and encyclopedic summary style. This is a matter of tone, generally, but also results in words to watch - some of which are specifically identified and some of which are analogous. I give two specific examples: "From there he soon joined" and "ending the Aydınid line for good". I could give more.
  • There are some issues with grammar and punctuation. Some specific examples are: Parenthetic clauses are not opened and closed with appropriate punctuation (example: "the Aydınid brothers Isa and Umur II," should be " the Aydınid brothers, Isa and Umur II,"). "When Mustafa marched to confront Murad in Anatolia, however, Junayd" is a fractured sentence.
  • Some of the language is not common across the English domain. For example, gubernatorial, while (more) commonly understood in the US, is not a common expression elsewhere (and not here, where I am in Oz). There are other sentences that might be written more clearly. For example: It is not clear that Mehmed I is Mehmed Çelebi and therefore the brother of İsa Çelebi.
  • Direct quotes should have the citation specifically applied at the end of the quote and not rely on a citation a sentence or two further on or at the end of a paragraph. Similarly for, "Doukas related that Junayd put a noose around his neck and presented himself to the Ottoman ruler as a repentant sinner", this last part (underlined) might be considered editorialising, unless it is attributed to the author by enclosing the phrase in quote marks and applying a citation.
  • I observe that the sentence structure is often complex. This affects readability. In many cases, the structures can be readily simplified - improving readability without affecting accuracy.

I could make a more detailed list of the issues I have identified but this is (in my opinion) not a productive use of either your time or mine, since (on my side) the time spent in detailing specifics might easily exceed the effort in simply making the edit directly. On the otherhand, I don't want to be seen as "taking over". There are a couple of ways we might proceed. My general comments may be sufficient for you to address many of the issues I have identified. I am also happy to proved further examples or to make "example edits" with "indicative" comments. Can I suggest these as an initial way forward? I am quite prepared to copy edit the article and collaborate with you as a "content expert". Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cinderella157, and thank you for taking the time to help around with this article! I would be very grateful if you would copyedit it, since obviously your expertise in that area far exceeds mine. One slight reservation though about using "common" language: I am quite opposed to the notion that "uncommon" words should be avoided, as I see no point in deliberately limiting vocabulary to a least common denominator. That said, feel free to edit around, and I will be on hand to correct if any semantic errors result. Thanks in advance, Constantine ✍ 17:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cinderella157, if you think we are done, please indicate your support here. Again a big thanks for your help and contribution! Constantine ✍ 17:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have worked with Constantine to address the issues raised above per talk page. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from FactotEm (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lede: Taking advantage of the situation, he attacked the Aydınid brothers... I think you need to specify who "he" in this sentence is. From the way it's written it could be Bayezid or Timur, but I suspect it's actually Junayd.
Fixed by Constantine. FactotEm (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the lede: You introduce İsa Çelebi, Mehmed I, Süleyman Çelebi, Musa Çelebi, and Mustafa Çelebi, but to me they were just random names without context. I wonder if it's possible somehow to explain that they were all sons of Bayezid, and were the Ottoman princes involved in the civil war?
Fixed by Constantine. FactotEm (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In section "Start of the Ottoman Interregnum (1403–1405)", 4th para, It is unclear if by this time Junayd was a vassal of Süleyman as he became later. Kastritsis concludes that if he was, then Junayd's support of İsa was probably out of alignment with Süleyman's policy to support İsa against Mehmed. If Süleyman supported İsa, how can Junayd's support of İsa be out of alignment?
Fixed by Constantine. FactotEm (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In section "Takeover of the Aydınid beylik (1405–1406)", 2nd para, ...but Umur escaped. In support of his nephew, Umar, the ruler of Menteshe, Ilyas Bey, marched against Ayasoluk. I read this as "In support of his nephew, Umar, who was the ruler of Menteshe...", i.e. that there were two different men named Umar. Would suggest "...but Umur escaped. His uncle, Ilyas Bey, the ruler of Menteshe, marched against Ayasoluk in support." or similar.
Fixed. FactotEm (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section and para, ...against the 3,000 of Junayd and the Kara-subashi.[g] Maybe consider incorporating the text of note g, which explains who the Kara-subashi might be, into the main narrative?
Looked at this. The Kara-subashi is first mentioned in the Background. I acknowledge your comment but on the otherhand, the "detail" of the note would break the flow of the narrative. A solution that would reconcile the two was not readily apparent to me so I have left it alobe. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, 3rd para, Having thus solidified his control over the Aydınid domains... Not sure that "solidified his control" is the right expression here. He had previously recognised Umur as lord of the Aydınid domains, and although he established followers, relatives and friends in (I assume) positions of power, he didn't actually solidify his position until he killed Umar and assumed rule of the principality.
Fixed. FactotEm (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In section "Between Süleyman and Mehmed (1406–1413)", 2nd para, Ragusan reports from June 1407... I've never heard of Ragusan before, read this sentence as if it was a person, then tripped over "indicate", thinking that it was a badly written construction. Maybe better written as "Reports from the Republic of Ragusa in June 1407..."?
Fixed. FactotEm (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Made further ce that might be even clearer. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, 4th para, ...Junayd left his post and returned to Smyrna, where he regained his former domains..., but later in the same para, Junayd...was laying siege to Ayasoluk.... Wasn't Ayasoluk part of his former domain? If so, he can't have "regained his former domains" completely, or have I misunderstood?
Fixed Cinderella157 (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I was really busy in RL and other stuff lately. I will be away from good internet access for the better part of the next two weeks, so I won't be able to address these points until after that. Constantine ✍ 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been bold and made most of the changes above that you have not already made yourself. The rest are not, I think, grounds for denying A-Class. FactotEm (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FactotEm, I would like to tank you for your time and efforts. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Thx. FactotEm (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2017 (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 Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Asheville-class gunboat (1917)[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Asheville-class gunboat (1917) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the standards for A class, or at least is close enough that it could meet them with help from others. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Maury Markowitz[edit]
  • Ok well right off the bat, "a group of two gunboats". What is a group? Do you mean a class?
     Done
  • "first ship was named as Tulsa" - "the first ship was the USS Tulsa"... "The second was the USS Asheville"...
     Done
  • As both ships have their own articles, the explanation of their names is not germane here.
     Done
  • Don't you think the force they operated for should be mentioned in the lede?
     Done

Let's stop there for the moment, getting the lede right should be a priority. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Parsecboy[edit]
  • Where are the design/development/characteristics sections? Class articles focus on the technical details of a group of ships, how the design was prepared, that sort of thing. For an example of what the article should look like, see Camäleon-class gunboat
     Done? There isn't much I've been able to find on their design, other than that they were based upon the Sacramento.
  • What are the relevant construction dates? The best option would be to replace the line in the Construction section with a table like in the article linked above
     Done
  • Prose issues identified at random (this is by no means meant to be exclusive:
    • No "the" before ship names
       Done
    • US topic, use US spellings
    • Lots of "it"s and "she"s - standardize on one per WP:SHE4SHIPS
       Done
    • "World War II", not "World War Two"
    •  Done
    • "the Inshore Patrol, who guarded" - which guarded
       Done
    • "Tulsa put up a spirited defense" - this is not encyclopedic language
       Done
  • Ditch the note for "show the flag" and link to wikt:show the flag instead. Parsecboy (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Done
  • @Parsecboy: I believe I've done everything, although the design section might need more work to mirror the Camaleon article standard. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • A relevant source you're going to want to include is US Small Combatants by Friedman - that will get you the design history stuff. I also spy two "metres", by the way. Parsecboy (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      @Parsecboy: I have ordered the book, as I could not find it online; it should arrive within a week or two. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      @Parsecboy and The ed17: I have added all I could from the Friedman book. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a lot of material in Friedman that's elided here. I'd think more details are better than fewer, especially since this article is not so long. Parsecboy (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Parsecboy: I have re-read the two pages, and added all I could. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        There's more context that can be added. I don't have access to the book in the office, but I'll try to whip up and example of what I'm talking about tonight. Parsecboy (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There appears to be technical information in Conway's 1906-1921 that could be added. Parsecboy (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've gone ahead and added material from Conway's, but at this point I've done too much work on the article to be uninvolved. Parsecboy (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:USS_Tulsa_(PG-22).png is tagged as lacking author info, and source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Done
  • Comment - made a bunch of copyedits. Open to supporting once Friedman is checked. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: Do you have anymore comments/concerns? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What makes navy.togetherweserved.com and Navsource reliable? I'm pretty sure the former isn't reliable, and the latter is borderline (I'd lean not). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: Both have been removed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: Do you have anymore concerns? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comments by auntieruth[edit]
  • I've read this through. The article is very choppy, and I think the writing could be more conducive to drawing the reader in. The lead is especially choppy and short...It needs a seriously good copy-edit for style and readability. auntieruth (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • G'day, Ruth, I had a go at this myself in the interests of trying to get this review finalised. These are my edits: [4]. Please let me know if you think it needs more work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest mentioning that the boilers were Thornycroft Bureau Modified steam boilers in the text (currently only mentioned in the infobox)

 Done

  • suggest adding a second level 3 sub heading under the "Design" header to balance/off set the sub header used for Characteristics

 Done

  • not sure about having a level three sub header for "Citations" nested directly under a level 2, when there is no other subsection. Suggest just going with a single level 2 header here based on the style you are attempting to employ

 Done

  • the table in the Ships section needs inline citations for A-class

 Done

  • "It was originally built to hold a crew of...": suggest changing "It" to a collective noun rather than a singular

 Done

@Iazyges: Looks like you've got a few comments outstanding. Any progress? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @HJ Mitchell: I haven't been on Wikipedia much as of late, since school has just started for me, but I should be back in the swing of things soon-ish. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:USS Little 4 inch gun and crew 1918 h41705.jpg": this would be more visually appealing if cropped to remove the annotation at the top of the image
  • is there place of publication for Silverstone?
  • minor inconsistency in presentation: "Annapolis, Md" or just "Annapolis"? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • What makes Hall of Valor RS?
It's borderline; its written by an editor for Military Times, and claims to have an indepednat vetting process for claims, i.e. consulting official databases. Its only used for the one citation, and as you pointed out DANFS has much the same, and the details aren't needed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need to find a more reliable source for the # of crewmen lost and surviving. What does DANFs say?
DANFS only mentions that only one person survived.
  • All the stuff about Brown is irrelevant here.

 Done

  • Watch for rounding errors in your conversions.
  • The first two sentences in the lede could profitably be combined. And the bit about the battle stars needs to be linked and moved to the end of the lede.

 Done

  • Bureu is misspelled in the main body?
I'm not able to find where Bureau is being misspelled. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to the cities for which they are named.

 Done

 Done

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 Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Momčilo Đujić[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Momčilo Đujić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Momčilo Đujić was a Orthodox priest that led a significant proportion of the Chetnik movement in the fascist puppet state the Independent State of Croatia during WWII. He openly collaborated with the Italian and then the German occupiers. He survived the war by surrendering to the western Allies, was tried in absentia by the Yugoslav authorities for war crimes, and went into exile in the US, where he was a leader in the Serbian diaspora. This article went through GAN a few years back, and while I've copy edited it recently, there are no doubt some things that need tweaking. All comments gladly received. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Momčilo_Đujić_crop.jpg: if my math is right, this would have become PD in Yugoslavia in 1991, not before - don't think the first tag is correct, unless there was an earlier publication? Same with File:Momčilo_Đujić_with_an_Italian_officer.jpg
  • The Yugoslav rule was 25 years from publication for photographs, so the photograph (published in 1946) became PD in 1971. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Chetniks_Flag.svg: don't think this is quite simple enough to qualify as simple geometry. File:Flag_IMARO.svg on the other hand is and should be so tagged, as should File:Flag_of_Montenegro_(1905-1918_%26_1941-1944).svg
  • File:Flag_of_Albania_(1943-1944).svg is tagged as lacking author info and should include a tag for the original design
  • File:Flag_of_the_Slovene_Home_Guard.svg should include a tag for the original design, as should File:Flag_of_Independent_State_of_Croatia.svg. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted all the flags, I've never been a big fan of them anyway. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • the couple received twins seems an odd turn of phrase
  • Fixed.
  • assassinated Yugoslavia's King Alexander wouldn't it be clearer to link the whole title "King Alexander", not just the name?
  • Fixed.
  • The king's assassination was partially orchestrated by the Ustaše, a Croatian fascist movement. Đujić then armed himself and began organising Serb paramilitary groups in and around Knin. That sentence seems abrupt and out of place where it is, considering it has nothing immediately to do with Đujić and the surrounding sentences do.
  • It is intended to show that the Ustase assassination of Alexander led to Đujić becoming a Chetnik.
  • "I knew that the country would not survive," punctuation should generally go outside of quote marks, per MOS:LQ
  • Fixed.
  • I don't think it hurts.
  • Do we know much about his apparently contradictory politics? Were his beliefs just that inconsistent, or did he change his speeches depending on who he was talking to?
  • No source I've seen makes this clear, although the article does note that his speeches changed depending on political developments (ie whichever way the wind was blowing).
  • In May 1937, Đujić gave a sermon interesting that you've used "sermon" here. Was he speaking here (and above) as a priest or as a Chetnik? Do we know much about the relationship between the two roles?
  • He was a politically active cleric, and in this case, he was preaching in his priestly role.
  • criticised Niko Novaković-Longo, a minister without portfolio ministers without portfolio aren't normally singled out for criticism; do we know what Đujić had against this particular politician?
  • he was deputy from Knin, so he was probably a political rival, although I can't find anything to confirm the rivalry. Perhaps I should state that he was a deputy from Knin to provide more context?
  • wished to minimize the influence that the United Workers Syndicate Union of Yugoslavia Why? Don't left-wing firebrands normally like trades unions?
  • They were communist-dominated, and communists are never popular with the church. I've added that the URSSJ was communist-dominated.
  • heavy pressure on the country to join the Axis might need to specify which country; Yugoslavia was the last mentioned, but several are mentioned in the previous sentence.
  • Good point. Fixed.
  • Do we need all the translations? The names are all linked, so the reader could go to those articles if they wanted the proper Serbo-Croatian names.
  • I retain them as an explanation for the initialisations, as they aren't from the English, ie Royal Yugoslav Army isn't RYA, it is VKJ from the Serbo-Croat. I've trimmed a couple.
  • Đujić was tried and sentenced in absentia Was he given an opportunity to defend himself? What was the sentence?
  • Usually defence counsel was provided, but obviously he couldn't instruct them. I haven't been able to find much info on his trial or sentence.
  • Was his war crimes conviction not an issue in his emigration to the US?
  • At the time, I daresay his anti-communism was more important.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Just in case you missed this. No worries if you're busy though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Harry, I've addressed what I can. Just one query about Novaković-Longo. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this slipped off the radar. Feel free to badger me more aggressively in future! If I'm busy I'll tell you to fu I'll get to it when I can! ;) Yes, I think it's worth mentioning that he was deputy from Knin but regardless, support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Harry, added that detail. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...was done with money donated" --> "...was financed with money donated..."?
  • in the References, I think Cohen should be before "Croation ministry..."
  • in the References, shouldn't Samardzic be before "Serb Leader Momcilo Djujic Dies..."
  • in the References, suggest translating the non English titles
  • there are a few examples of overlinked terms: Knin, Bihac, Zagreb, Split,
  • possible spelling variation inconsistency: "recognized" but also "organised", "baptised" etc.
  • "force of between 6,000–7,000 withdrew..." --> "force of between 6,000 and 7,000 withdrew..."
  • "...and was subsequently described...": suggest stating in text who described him as such

Support with some nitpicky observations:

  • In section "Early life, education and priesthood", 1st para, ...Rade established himself as a successful agricultural worker seems an odd way to put it. People become successful bankers or lawyers, but don't they become simply become agricultural workers?
    Overly literal translation, I've changed it to farmer.
  • In section "World War II", 2nd para, ...NDH authorities implemented a policy of widespread incarcerations, massacres, forced emigration, and murder of Serbs. I can understand a policy of incarceration and forced emigration, but were massacres and murders carried out as policy, or did they simply happen?
    No, it actually was policy. The Minister of the Interior reportedly said that one-third of Serbs in the NDH would be expelled, one-third converted to Catholicism, and one-third killed.
  • In section "Establishment of the Dinara Division", 1st para, ... the Dinara Division was formed after Đujić was contacted by the Chetnik supreme commander Mihailović, via a courier. The Chetnik commander Ilija Trifunović-Birčanin... is a little confusing. It introduces the "Chetnik commander Ilija Trifunović-Birčanin" immediately after mentioning the "Chetnik supreme commander", and I thought the two were the same. Maybe worth stating "Draža" instead of "Chetnik supreme commander"?
    reworded, see what you think.
  • Same para, Nedić is introduced without explanation. You're a bit constrained because he first appears in a quote, but is there any reason why you couldn't wikilink his name on first, rather than third mention? Also, and this is probably just me being dumb, not being familiar with Serbo-Croat names, I thought "[Milan]" was some kind of reference to Italy, as Đujić's collaberation with them is discussed in the section immediately preceding this one.
    Good pick-up. I've linked in the quote and added some more info about him in square brackets. See if it's better now.
  • In section "Retreat and surrender", the quote reads ...German Army in these area from September.... Is "these area" a typo, or does the original also fail to make "area" plural? FactotEm (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A typo. Fixed.
    Thanks for taking a look, FactotEm! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. Looks good. FactotEm (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2017 (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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

German destroyer Z2 Georg Thiele[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

German destroyer Z2 Georg Thiele (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a GA article, and I believe that it meets the criteria for A-class. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Leberecht_Maass1.jpg is tagged as lacking author info
  •  Done
  • File:UK-NWE-Norway-2.jpg: when/where was this first published and who was the original author? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done

Comments by Ranger Steve[edit]

I do not have as many concerns about this article as I do the other destroyers currently at A-Class nomination, but I still feel that this article lacks a comprehensive background section. As one of the first destroyers constructed after the First World War, it needs more explanation of why it was built and what it was envisaged for. The evolution of the Type 34 destroyer needs to be summarised here.

The Narvik section is excellent, but the ships's story does not stop when it was beached. There are numerous impressive pictures of its wreck today, some may even be on Wikicommons. A bit more about that would close the article nicely. Regards, Ranger Steve Talk 10:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to Support now. The only thing I might say is that the lede is a little short and perhaps could be expanded a little with the addition of a few more details about Narvik, but it's not a deal breaker. Ranger Steve Talk 10:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, nice work. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the References, I suggest translating the title of the Dorr work. It can be added to the cite book template using "|trans_title="
  •  Done
  • inconsistent spelling: "draft" and "draught"
  •  Done
  • Adolf Hitler is overlinked
  •  Done
  • there is a grammatical issue here: "Georg Thiele The ship was ordered..."
  •  Done
  • "bow rebuilt to fix the large amount of water" --> "bow rebuilt to fix the damaged caused by the large amount of water..."
  •  Done
  • suggest adding a month and year to this (in the lead): "During the early stages of the Norwegian Campaign, Georg Thiele fought in both naval Battles of Narvik and had to be beached to allow her crew to abandon ship safely after she had been severely damaged by British fire."

 Done

@AustralianRupert: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the review: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest mentioning who the namesake was in the body of the text
    I've added it to lede; looking for a good source to add it to body. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the text of the article says the ship was completed on 27 February 1937, while the infobox says it was commissioned that day. It should be consistent.
    In Germany the two were often on the same day; she would be completed and commissioned on same day. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, I've adjusted the text slightly to hopefully make that clearer. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the referencing style seems slightly inconsistent as one now seems to use sfn templates, but the others don't.
  •  Fixed

Comments by The Bushranger[edit]

Good to see the 'little boys' getting some love. A lot has already been covered above, so I'll hit the points that I think could really use some work to be up to snuff here.

  • "32–64 depth charges, 4 throwers and 6 individual racks" - this sounds like the throwers and racks are seperate somehow. Perhaps "launched by" or "launched from" would clarify that?
  •  Done
  • Something about the post-beaching "career" (for want of a better term) should be in the lede. "The ship, having broken up, is now a popular diving site" or something along those lines.
  •  Done
  • "Initial designs were for large ships more powerful than the French and Polish destroyers then in service" - This just nags at me as slightly awkward-looking. Perhaps "Initial designs for the new destroyers..." would help?
  •  Done
  • "but the design grew..." Also a little awkward when contrasted to the fact the ships were already regarded as large. "Grew further" perhaps?
  •  Done
  • "The only real innovative part of the design..." 'Real' sounds...oddly informal here. "Substantially" might work better, or "significantly"?
  •  Done
  • The description refers to depth charge launchers, while the infobox says DC throwers. This should be made consistent to one or the other.
  •  Done
  • Was the ship's name given to her at launching, or commissioning?
    Looking into now Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to have her bow rebuilt to fix the damage caused by the large amount of water that came over her bow in head seas." Would "during sea trials" be appropriate?
    I don't know if it makes sense to add it, at least where I presume you are thinking of adding it (at the end?). While ships generally did go much faster during sea trials than any other time, even wartime, it was fixed because it was a problem even at wartime speed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was transporting Adolf Hitler to occupy Memel." - The wording here is somewhat unclear. Was Hitler going to occupy the city by himself? "To give a speech celebrating the occupation of Memel" perhaps might be an idea here?
  •  Done
  • "She participated in the Spring fleet exercise" - 'spring' probably shouldn't be capitalised.
  •  Done
  • "down the fjord" - wikilink fjord, perhaps?
  •  Done
  • "was able to fire approximately 13 shells" - would mentioning what size shells Norge was firing be relevant?
  •  Done
  • "were the first to refuel" - "the first ships to refuel" might be better.
  •  Done
  • "the five destroyers of the British 2nd Destroyer Flotilla" - as 2DF is a redlink, the ships should perhaps be named here (with according tweaks later when they are currently first named)?
  •  Done
  • "Thiele probably also hit her with a torpedo" - a bit causal phrasing here, perhaps. "Thiele is believed to have hit her..." might be better?
  •  Done
  • "as she'd been hit seven times" - also casual language. Would suggest expanding the contraction.
  •  Done
  • "they did inflict splinter damage" - is there an appropriate wikilink for splinter that could be provided?
    Surprisingly none. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The pursuing British destroyers initially engaged the latter ship until it exhausted its ammo and retreated to the head of the fjord itself and then switched their attentions to Thiele." - run-on sentnece; also, it's not clear if it's Ludemann or the British ships retreating.
  •  Done
  • Seconding Ranger Steve's question if a modern-day picture of the wreck is available.
  •  Done
    • Well, that took a bit longer than I'd expected. Overall this is very good, and my comments mostly mere quibbles. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      @The Bushranger: I've done all but finding out if she was named during launching or commissioning, (although I'm fairly certain its launching). Do you have any more comments? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice work. The only major thing I can suggest now is perhaps alternating the pictures left-right-left (and/or if the wreck pic remains on the left, adding a {{clear}} as at 1440px it overruns the top title of 'See also'). Other than that though, this is a tidy article that hits the points to inform and keep a reader interested, I'm happy to support. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:28, 25 November 2017 (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 Biblioworm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham[edit]

Nominator(s): Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)

Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Hello again all. This is a re-nomination (previous here). The last one took so long (mea culpa but will not happen this time on my watch) that editors left the project and others had moved on (and who can blame them!). I think most points were addressed by the time it was closed, although I look forward to more. Many thanks, — fortunavelut luna

  • Comments Support – this article looks in good shape to me, a few relatively minor MOS points:
    • There are a lot of duplicate links that should probably be removed per WP:REPEATLINK.
I removed most of the dups from he body, but considering the size of the article, I thought per WP:MOSLINK, keeping "the first occurrence after the lead"?
Yes that is right. Anotherclown (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...the dead King's brothers- John, Duke of Bedford and Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester- would..." I think the hyphens here should be longer emdashs per WP:DASH but I’m not a 100 percent certain on this so please check (there are several instances of this in the article that may need adjustment).
I'm flattered that you think I understand dashes any better than you, Ac  ;) but it's not the case I'm afraid- I am completely lost and will have to take some advice elsewhere (if that's OK?)
    • "...although the centrepiece of Buckingham's estates..." is this meant to be a new sentence or should the proceeding full-stop be a comma?
Yes it should be; now is.
    • "...The latter also included the title of earldom of Buckingham, which bringing a further £1,000..." consider instead something like "...which brought a further £1,000..." or something like that.
Well caught, done.
    • "...Stafford also had major estates on the Welsh Marches..." The link to Welsh Marches should be moved from here to its first use.
Done.
    • Is there a missing word somewhere here: "...and that Buckingham's influential voice was used a vote for action in the King's camp..."?
I think so- can't remember- but "vote to do X" seems more likely that that.
    • "They had 10 children:"... was there meant to be a list after the colon? Anotherclown (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks- the list follows in the next para, this is just to introduce "seven boys and three girls."

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up maps
Right, I did St. Albans by 1.5 and Northampton by 1.3- better?
  • Suggest revising Brecon Castle caption
Agree; specified date, made it a proper sentence too.
  • File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Sir_Humphrey_Stafford,_1st_Duke_of_Buckingham,_KG.png: is this a user-generated version or a scan from the source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure to be honest- but it's almost certainly user-generated- at least, the fact that the author references W.H. St John Hope's book on Garter Stalls suggests it's lifted from there. Although of course it could be a recoloured touched-up sscan couldn't it. How do I check? -or just ask the author?!
You could try asking, see if you get a response. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Yeeeas- they haven't edited for ten months, so I'm not hopeful- but left a nice message on their media.wiki page, which hopefully they'll see at some point. — fortunavelut luna 22:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: To finally answer your question, in the creator's own words, "As to the designs, they are my work based on originals or illustrated from various rolls of arms where only a blazon is available." — fortunavelut luna 10:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, then we should be good to go on images. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: thanks for your efforts. The looks quite good to me, but unfortunately I can't comment on the content. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • this appears to be unreferenced: "They had 10 children: seven sons and three daughters."
    • Well: This was really just meant to summarise the following paras, where those ten children were individually referenced.
      • I think it would be best to just duplicate the citation/s. It's not an oppose for me, but I would highly recommend that before FAC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: I guess I'm finding it a little tricky because something as smple as that is almost too simple to be in an 'academic text' (where they launch into details), but likewise he's not famous enough to have a 'Janet and John' book about him which would summarise such a thing. Now, the ODNB entry does sort of source it- but my text would really have to be tweaked to say (to align precisely with the source) "They had 10 children: seven sons, and three daughters who married well" (changes in bold)- because according to the ODNB there, they actually had five daughters! I'm guessing the other two either died young or took religion- she doesn't say. Can you see the slight difficulty I'm having in parsing the details! — fortunavelut luna(Currently not receiving (most) pings, sorry) 05:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I'd suggest maybe adding an explanatory footnote in this case, to help explain the issue. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is some inconsistency in the presentation of citations, for instance compare Citation # 26 (Gundy) with Citation # 27 (Carpenter). Citation # 5 (Walker) and # 21 (Curry) also seem inconsistent with the main style used in the article
    • Done, all sfns etc now.
  • in the Bibliography, is there an ISBN or OCLC number that could be added for the McFarlane 1980 source?

Yes, and done.

  • in the Bibliography, the title of the McFarlane 1980 source should use title case caps for consistency
    • Done, cheers.
  • in the Bibliography, for the journals, suggest adding either ISSN or OCLC numbers (these can usually be found on worldcat.org)
    • Good idea, done.
  • in the Early career section, Normandy is overlinked
    • Delinked.
  • in the Family section, Humphrey is overlinked
    • Rather, unlinked.
  • "One estimation of his estates..." --> "One estimate of his estates..."?
    • Done, well spotted.
  • there appears to be a typo here (but I wasn't quite sure what to change it to): "He was already describing himself as "the Right Mighty Prince Humphrey Earl of Buckingham, Hereford, Stafford, Northampton and Perche, Lord of Brecknock and Holdernesse'Holdernesse" (specifically the "Holdernesse'Holdernesse")
    • Yes tih was bizarre. I removed the second mention of Holderness (a stray duplicate I guess?!), but the somewaht archaic spelling comes from the fact that Rawcliffe s citing the original letter (so it's the Ye Olde version). Should it have a 'sic'?
  • in the Family section, this isn't a complete sentence: "Third husband of Lady Margaret Beaufort, daughter of John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset, and Margaret Beauchamp."
    • Fixed- a full stop instead of a comma.
  • @AustralianRupert: Thanks very much for getting involved AR! Especially in the technical stuff which I tend to miss. Right, as you can see I've fixed most of what you suggested- just those couple of thoughts remain. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna(Currently not receiving (most) pings, sorry) 04:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cinderella157

  • The Family section requires a little attention.
  • There are two unresolved tags which are both matters of ambiguity.
  • The last sentence of first para is out of place. Suggest should go to para 2.
  • There is no ref for the number of children as 10 and the ODNB says 12? An explanatory note would certainly be in order, to effect: "The available sources report the marriages of three of his daughters but is silent on the fete of the remaining two."
  • The second para is a little disjointed and out of place, in that there is detail repeated in the next and (particularly) the last. In all, I suggest a bit of shuffling to make this section work better.
  • Composition and style. The writing style relies heavily on complex sentence structures. This reduces readability and accessibility. Copy editing could address this issue without compromising accuracy. I note particularly (as an example but not the sole means to address these concerns), the use of the semicolon. The article might be better served by breaking to separate sentences at such points. Having said that, the article reads well.
  • "says one modern historian". It is probably better to attribute them by name.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Cinderella157. Unfortunately, it's not in my powers or desires to re-write the article  :) but I think I have addressed the bulk of your concerns. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 18:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have edited to move the problematic parenthetic clause: "This marriage cost Buckingham 2,300 marks, and he "took a long even time to pay that"." It was this clause that made the sentence problematic to read.
  • In the course of tweaking this section, I followed a couple of links and online references from these. See John Talbot, 3rd Earl of Shrewsbury, John de Vere, 12th Earl of Oxford, William Beaumont, 2nd Viscount Beaumont [5], [6] and [7]. This version of the ODNB is the 1898 Vol 53. The ODNB1898 gives names to the five daughters. It reports that Catherine (elsewhere Katherine) and not Margret, married Talbot. In the ODNB1898 Joan is styled Joanna. It might be useful to compare the two versions. The infobox is unsourced per the full details of his childrens' names (viz, they are not all given in the main text nor is there a source for the additional names appearing in the info box. The seventh son is either unnamed or his name is unknown. Such details should be reported rather than omitted. Differences between sources should also be acknowledged and (if possible, reconciled). These sources indicate that only Anne was married before his death (and possibly Joan[na] - a date before March 1461) while the article suggests otherwise. The marriage to Talbot was in 1467 and the birth year of Margret (or Catherine) appears in error cw Anne, the eldest daughter? Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 05:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong. I wholly dispute and reject any necessity for using a 100+ year-old source which has been deliberately updated and reissued. I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of using it or even mentioning it. Thank you. — fortunavelut luna 07:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, WP:NOOFFENCE of course 🍔 🍟 🍦 — fortunavelut luna 08:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested you might "look at" and "compare it" (not intended as direct quotes) with the more modern edition. I did not state (or insinuate) that it should (or must) be cited. Having said that, the ODND1898 and other later sources indicate some of the afore issues - but not all. Age of a source is not, of itself, a reason for discounting it per se. I would though, point to the degradation or destruction of primary sources in the mid-20th century UK (WWII) as a reason why these might be considered - particularly for matters of fact, as opposed to opinion. My own experiences have uncovered errors in fact (made in good faith) in a relatively modern source that has been perpetuated by more recent writers ("copying" the original error - taking it as "fact" in good faith) where the primary sources are available and clearly indicate the initial error. This comes to my broader point (I was not being specific WRT the ODNB1989) that sources should be acknowledge and (if possible) reconciled. This is a matter of maintaining a WP:NPOV. This does not apply to sources that are "obviously" unreliable and with no credibility. This is not the case here.
I note that brief communication at a distance (such as this) can be easily misinterpreted. If my comments and assessment style has caused umbrage (as it appears from comments elsewhere), I appologise for any error on my part. My comments have been objective and reasoned (I hope). Regarding the matter of writing style, I can provide sources. This was a critique made of me (for similar reasons) in my initial endeavors here. I have embraced the critique, not as a personal criticism, but as a way of making WP more accessible. On the otherhand, my "critic" proposed changes to my amended text that were marginal or unsubstantiated by objective measures of readability. I have not crossed this threshold.
Per your immediate comments, I note that they do not address the "greater substance" of the concerns I have raised. WP:NOOFFENCE is a redlink and the closest I can find is Wikipedia:No offense intended; however, I will Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I note citations to: Beltz 1841, Cokayne 1912, Cokayne 1913 and Baugh 1933 (yes, I did read and understand what you wrote - in full). Tertiary sources are subject to something akin to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (my own observation) - entries in such sources are subject to a third "determiner", which is neither "fact" nor biased POV but editorial decision and "hover" about the "intricate" details. A "good" tertiary source (as we strive to be) should cite its sources. I note that the ODND1898 does this (though perhaps not to the same extent we do here). I cannot comment on the more recent version, as I do not have access.
I have neither required that you cite the ODND1898 nor have I wholly relied upon it in making my comments. Rather, that it is supportive and indicative in conjunction with the other sources. You will note that I have taken it upon myself to make minor "corrections" rather than to "pass the buck". I have also researched some citations, and, where initial searches did not support statements made, I investigated further. This was both in my assumption of "good faith" and my "due diligence", where I might have reasonably raised such questions as a challenge of verifiability without taking the time to invesyigate further.
I also note (at this time) your revision to "a massive chunk of the Midlands" and would cite WP: slang in this respect.
This is an article that deserves promotion save for some "minor" issues that should be easily addressed and that we might work togeather to resolve. I sincerely hope that this might be the case. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this, and apologies for misunderstanding you: you are not telling me what to do after all. However, I have... changed "chunk" to "swathe." I will also AGF, about trying to stitch me up below 😆 🧀 🍞 🍸 Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 08:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to confirm a quote as part of my due diligence and the link provided only a snippet view and did not find the quote. I was eventually able to find the quote but it caused me some concern. As you will see from below, I was uncertain on this point and have sought opinion on this matter, to which I have deferred. My only intent has been the objective assessment of the article. Yes, "swathe" is better. If you can address the substance of my comments, I will have no issue with supporting the article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but what are they? — fortunavelut luna 07:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are all indicated at my previous dot point however, ...

  • The names of his children appearing in the infobox do not all appear elsewhere in the body of the text. As such, this is not (apparently) supported by a citation.
  • The list of children absents one son and one daughter. This "appears" to be an error of omission and not (at least for the son) an absence of information.
  • In the family section, the dates given indicate that Anne is the youngest, and not the eldest daughter.
  • The text suggests that his three daughters married before his death. Sources indicate that only one definitely did, with one marrying close to the time of his death (before March 1461) and the third, in 1467.
  • There are conflicting reports as to whether Catherine or Margret was the third daughter to marry.
  • I note that Catherine is sometimes Katherine. This is not exceptional for the time, when spelling was not as ridgid as it is now. I also noted that Joan has been reported as Joanne. Only the matter of Joan[ne] and that the names of all five daughters is available arise specifically from the ODNB1898. The other apparent conflicts are from sources cited in articles on the husbands. They appear to be online compilations of Cokayne that are referenced to him (see hyperlinks above).
  • I indicated that conflicting sources should be acknowledged and, if possible, reconciled. More specifically, it is not up to us to make judgements about sources (thought we might rely on the judgements of others to reconcile differences). This last comment is not specific to any source or issue but a general observation, as it might assist in addressing some of these issues.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anotherclown, @Nikkimaria, @AustralianRupert, as commenters here, your opinions are sought. I am uncertain on this point. Links to google books in the references might imply that all or part of what is cited can be sourced online, either in full or in part, whether free or by "purchase" (IMHO). This is not necessarily the case. Specifically, a the link to google books provides a "snippet" but no access to the fuller work (with or without purchase). In effect, it is nothing more than a source of bibliographic detail in which the ISBN is provided in any case, as well as in the article - so it is redundant? Is this misleading? I don't suggest it is intentionally so. Is this an issue, either in this assessment or for higher elevation. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guide is WP:PAGELINKS - generally if no preview is available we wouldn't include the link, but keep in mind that what is available can vary from person to person. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Nikki here. I've no dramas with courtesy links. Access to Google Books can change from region to region. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "He spent the last few years of his life attempting to mediate between the Yorkists and the Crown" As he eventually took one side, maybe "He spent much of the last few"
  •  Done
  • "the King had made any last words" I would say "the King had spoken any last words"
  •  Done
  • "Humphrey was born at Stafford, Staffordshire," You should give the date here.
  •  Done -but actually, I couldn't find a source for that precise date, and themost comprehensive RS says Dec not August! Adjusted accordingly.
  • "Stafford was later granted livery of his father's estate by parliament, in acknowledgement of the dead King's verbal promise" What does this mean - that he was granted the right to wear the badge of his father's estate? Also, as you have not previously mentioned the promise, I would say "which he had been verbally promised by Henry V".
  •  Done your change of wording; also, linked to "suing one's livery" which is a legal term rather than a heraldic one.
  • You have linked to livery, which is mainly about the heraldic meaning and refers briefly to "suing one's livery" at the end". I think it would be clearer if you just said that his minority was ended and he was allowed to take possession of his father's estates. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Dudley Miles to the section- I think it's important to link to such detail since we have an article for it, but I agree with explaining its meaning in the text. Reworded the sentence slightly on account of this.
  • "Since Perche was a frontier region, and experienced of the conflict at this time,[23] whatever income the estate generated was probably invested into the defence of the region." This does not sound right. Maybe "Since Perche was a frontier region, and experienced conflict at this time,[23] whatever income the estate generated was probably invested in the defence of the region."
  •  Done -been a bug bear from the beginning- cheers!
  • The section on estates is confusing. You say his potential income was £6,300 in 1447-48, then in the next paragraph go back to his mother's death in 1438, then estimate his income in the late 1440s as 3,700 to 5,000.
  •  Done At least, rearranged and shuffled around- better?
  • "often tenants for soldiering" What are tenants for soldiering?
  •  Done clarified.
  • "In 1442 he was appointed Captain of Calais[1] and of the tower of Risbanke, and was indented to serve for the next decade." How long did he stay in France?
  •  Done
  • "his "offensive behaviour" towards Jeanne d'Arc at her trial" You have not previously mentioned this.
  •  Done D'oh!
  • What offensive behaviour? (Oh I see you have explained but I did not find it at first because you have spelled her name differently.) Dudley Miles (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Standardized both mentions of her name, delinked the second one per OVERLINK.
  • You are inconsistent in how you cite DNB articles.
  •  Done-unnecessary panic, just think the page needed refreshing! Someone ballsed them right up for me, is why :) I've tried to change them, but no luck yet.
  • This is a good articles and the queries are minor, apart from the somewhat confused account of his finances. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers, Dudley Miles. Except for the ODBs, w What say you? — fortunavelut luna 17:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I see that the livery link did not go to the section because you put in the hash twice. I have corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. "Then I should retire to my estates and give my lands over to my sons"  :) thanks for your help wiith this, Dudley Miles. — fortunavelut luna 19:49, 10 November 2017 (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 HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Stanley Gibbs[edit]

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk)

Stanley Gibbs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Perhaps not as clear a military topic as some of the others here, but I think it still fits and is up to the ACR challenge. Stanley Gibbs was an Australian shipping clerk, most notable for being awarded the Albert Medal (later exchanged for the George Cross) in 1927 for attempting to save the life of a teenager during a shark attacked at Port Hacking, New South Wales. The coroner investigating the incident claimed that Gibbs' "bravery and self sacrifice merits the award of the Victoria Cross", while the local mayor compared Gibbs' actions to the battlefield heroics of the First World War. Gibbs' later served in the Second Australian Imperial Force during the Second World War, but his service in an operational theatre was brief: he broke his leg the day he arrived in New Guinea. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, sorry, not a lot stood out to me in terms of things to address. It looks pretty good to me: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • there is only one duplicate link (George Cross, in the lead), which seems appropriate in the circumstances (no action required)
  • the article seems well referenced and complete
  • the prose seemed ok to me
  • citations appear consistent and reliable
  • images seem appropriately licenced to me
  • do we know the year that he divorced? Currently it seems a bit indistinct (not really a requirement, though)
  • Unfortunately not. I searched through all of my secondary sources and spent quite a bit of time Trove diving to no avail. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • do we know any more details on the accident that led to the broken leg? Was it a motor vehicle accident, a slip-fall...?
  • Same as above, unfortunately. Nothing specific is mentioned in the secondary sources nor Gibbs' service record. I also had a look through the battalion war diary, but found nothing there either. In any case, thanks very much for the review, AustralianRupert! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this at GAN back in July, and have looked at the changes since. I consider it meets the A-Class criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Peacemaker67! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks fine to me, but a couple of comments:

  • "He was followed by sister Ellen in 1910, Phyllis in 1912, and brother Lindsay in 1917." Seems awkward. Suggest "He was followed by two sisters, Ellen in 1910 and Phyllis in 1912, and a brother, Lindsay, in 1917."
  • Done.
  • "It was Stanley Gibbs the hero of tho Port Hacking shark tragedy" should be "of the"
  • Good catch – fixed.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Hawkeye7! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image Review:
    • All images check out as being PD and seem to have the required templates and information as far as I can tell. Anotherclown (talk) 11:17, 11 November 2017 (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 AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Greek battleship Salamis[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk), The ed17 (talk)

Greek battleship Salamis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I wrote this article, originally, almost 8 years ago, but after substantially overhauling it (with help from Ed, with whom I'm sharing credit), I think it's ready for A-class (and hopefully FAC after that). This article is about a battleship (or battlecruiser, depending on who you ask) ordered by Greece from Germany during a small naval arms race with the Ottomans in the 1910s. The ship couldn't be completed after WWI broke out, and was the subject of postwar litigation between the shipbuilder and the Greek government. Proposals to finish the ship to counter the Turkish Yavuz came to nothing, and the contract dispute finally ended in 1932, in favor of the builder. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • I found the lead caption a bit tough to parse - wondering whether there is a better phrasing possible
    • See how it's worded now.
  • File:Averof_Today2.jpg is sourced to itself - I'm guessing this should be own work?
    • Yeah, I would think so - fixed.
  • File:Early_Salamis_design.png: do we know Proceedings of what?
  • File:Battleship_Salamis.jpg: is an artist or earlier source credited in Conway's? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, Conway's is generally unhelpful in that regard. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I find articles on the political-military-strategic stories behind armaments programs to be very interesting, and this is a particularly good example of the genre. I have only the following comments:

  • "The ship was to have had a top speed of 23 knots (43 km/h; 26 mph), higher than other battleships of the period, which has led to the ship to be sometimes described as a battlecruiser" - "the ship" is repeated in this sentence
    • Good catch.
  • "The Greek government selected neither firm's designs." - this is a bit awkward, especially as it seems that the Greek Government didn't order any ships at this time. Something like 'The Greek Government did not pursue these proposals" might be superior
    • Sounds better to me too.
  • Do the sources describe the scale of the financial burden of the naval arms race on the Greek Government? It must have been a huge commitment for a small, new and not very rich country. The article notes at various times that the program put pressure on the Greeks, but some figures around the extent of this would be helpful (eg, the proportion of the government budget or national GDP it represented, etc)
    • No, unfortunately not with any of those kinds of specifics. Fotakis does talk a little about the budget on page 35, but with the vagaries of Google Books, I can't see that page beyond what the snippet preview shows. I've requested it from the library, and hopefully that can add a little.
      • I've added a little, but Fotakis isn't very helpful when it comes to the budget - the best I could wring from him was that Greek finances were tight, but he doesn't give any numbers. And even if he did, it wouldn't have been very helpful, since the figures he does provide (like the cost of modernizing Salamis) are in drachmas, and the price we have for Salamis is in British pounds. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Salamis was 569 feet 11 inches (173.71 m) long...", etc, in the sub-sections of the Design section: it seems a bit odd to refer to the ship's characteristics in this way given that she was never completed. I'd suggest tweaking the tense.
    • Yeah, my thinking was since the hull was finished, the dimensions should be in past tense.
  • Can a citation be provided to support the identification of Salamis in the 'Unfinished battleship Salamis (far right) in Hamburg' photo? Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably not, unfortunately - it's based on discussion, and while it's ORish, it's a reasonable conclusion - the other two hulls have been identified elsewhere and this one obviously isn't a Mackensen or Bayern, and there wasn't any other kind of dreadnought type ships under construction in Germany, let alone in Hamburg. Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK fair enough. This could be problematic at FAC though. Tweaking the wording to something less certain might help? Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have now been addressed, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Watch for rounding errors in your conversions
    • Think I've got them all - you'd think by now I'd have remembered that, but apparently not. I blame the fact that I originally wrote the article forever ago.
  • Need a link for caliber length and for magazine and monitor
    • All added.
  • Nicely done, but I'll make a second pass later to see if I notice anything else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Iazyges[edit]

Perhaps "Which had significant effects on the First Balkan War and World War I."
"that" is better, grammatically
  • "In 1911, a constitutional change in Greece allowed the government to hire naval experts from other countries, which led to the arrival of a British naval mission."
Did the Greeks solicit this mission, or was it involved in the arrival, or did the mission just "show up""?
How does swapping "arrival" for "invitation" sound?
Sounds good. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " by ordering the ship's armor in the United States."
"In" the US, or "from" the US?
"From the US", to my mind, implies there was some government role in the purchase, but it was just from Bethlehem.
  • Support
    • I did a minor c/e and read through it without seeing any major issues. Pls see my changes here and feel free to revert anything where I may have inadvertently changed the meaning of something [8].
      • Thanks, much appreciated.
    • What is a "Grench loan"? Anotherclown (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, that should be "French" - good catch :) Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 11 November 2017 (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 Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Emmendingen[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk)

Battle of Emmendingen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because ... working this year of the French Revolutionary Wars toward a featured topic status....this is one of the battle articles for the group. Several of the sub articles are already at Featured article. auntieruth (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Indy beetle[edit]

  • I don't think it's necessary to say at the bottom of the infobox that both sides lost a general when the † by the names of those that died under the commanders and leaders subsection. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. These are my final observations:

  • "At midday, Latour threw his customary caution to the wind". The phrase "[throwing] caution to the wind" seems too idiomatic for an encyclopedia article. abandoned
  • For the losses in the infobox, it would be better if their nature was clarified. For example, separately notate the French losses as the 1,000 killed and wounded and the ~1,800 captured instead of combing them. fixed
  • "Lack of bridges did not slow the Coalition's pursuit." Should probably say "The lack of bridges". fixed
  • I'm a little confused by the citation style in this article. A few are written in a shortened footnote style whereas some are written more in full. I'd recommend adhering to a harv sfn, seeing as you already have all the bulk of the source info under "Alphabetical listing of resources", but at any rate these should be consistent as per WP:MH/A A1.
  • In the footnotes that are rendered under the "Notes" subsection, it would be helpful if the citations presented next to the text were put in the ref tags so that they rendered separately under the "Citations" subsection. If I'm not being clear enough, see the citation for the "Notes" section at the Black Sea Raid article.
  • This is an ongoing dispute in my referencing style. I'm reluctant to separate the citation from the note, first of all. Regarding the citations, they are consistent: the first time one is used, it's cited in full. Subsequently it is short-cited.'
  • "Smith does not fully explain the difference of 4,000 men in the Coalition force...It is possible, even likely, that the difference accounts for the force that Charles sent to blockade the French". Is this something Smith makes clear, or is that a WP:SYNTH interpretation? That might be the logical synthesis, but no one actually says that.

-Indy beetle (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC) No further concerns from me. Support on the prose. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "Habsburg/Austrian": See WP:SLASH. Although slashes survive MOS if reliable sources treat the slash as part of the name, I don't think this slash will survive that test.
  • "to abandon their plans for a three-pronged withdrawal, abandoning": abandons running wild.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • lol, rewrote abandons gone wild, and fixed the slash problem. auntieruth (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: Excellent work as always, Ruth. I made a few minor MOS tweaks, and have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the Alphabetical listing of resources, "Paul Huot" --> Huot, Paul? fixed
  • same loc, "Constant von Wurzbach" --> Von Wurzbach, Constant (or Wurzbach, Constant von)? fixed
  • same loc, date/year for Dupuy? removed. I removed the citation before.
    • Sorry, Ruth, I'm not sure this has been dealt with. You have still got a citation to Dupuy (citation # 2). I think Dupuy should be added back to your alphabetical listing. If there is no year/date, I don't see a major problem, it could probably just use "n.d." or something similar. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Gates citation should be added to the Alphabetical listing of resources, as should Haythornthwaite, Rothenberg, Vann, Walker
  • "Phipps, II:380–385" --> "Phipps, pp. 380–385"? no it's volume 2.
    • No worries. I have a couple of follow up queries/observations then... You currently only list one volume of Phipps in your alphabetical listing of sources, so there potentially isn't a need for you to disambig Phipps in short citations. Secondly, you have "Phipps, II:380–385" but also "Phipps, p. 278". Is the second Phipps citation to the same volume, i.e. Volume II? If so, they should be consistent. Equally, if there is a need to disambig the short citation, it should probably be "Phipps, Vol. II, pp. 380–385". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is one citation needed tag that should be dealt with. that is generic encyclopedic information. If it has to be cited, I'll remove the note and force someone can actually look it up in the article about it. Taking citation of everything to the level of ridiculousness.
  • Okay, it is probably best to remove the note in this case, if it can't be referenced given that another editor has requested the citation (per WP:CHALLENGE). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can link it to the article on the First Coalition....It's just that the participants in the coalition are cited in nearly every source....auntieruth (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • okay, @AustralianRupert: I added a different citation, instead of adding all the books into one. still having trouble getting edits to "hold". auntieruth (talk)
  • G'day, Ruth, this one looks close to promotion, IMO, but there are a couple of minor queries still outstanding in my comments (the Dupuy and Phipps issues are still outstanding). It possibly also needs an image review. @Nikkimaria: if you have a moment, would you mind taking a look at the images on this one? Thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @AustralianRupert:, Nikki did an image review (I fixed the one problem), and I've fixed the Dupuy and Phipps issues. also have solved my editing problems! auntieruth (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Passage_from_Germany_Moreau_1796.jpg: check reference number, doesn't seem to be correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2017 (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 Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

First Battle of Dernancourt[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

First Battle of Dernancourt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article is my first go at an "Australian" battle of WWI after my recent forays into South Australian WWI bios, taking a bit of break from Yugoslavia in WWII. A suburb in my home city, Adelaide, is named after this battle (and the subsequent Second Battle of Dernancourt, which I'm currently working on in user space as it is more complex). The Germans attacked pretty much off the line of march without adequate artillery preparation during the second week of their Spring Offensive, and did not fare well against the fresh Australian troops and their tired, depleted but resolute British comrades. It recently went through GAN, and I'm keen to see where improvements might be made, especially as it will also impact on the Second Dernancourt article. I'm particularly interested in whether the structure works and whether the "left to right" explanation of the battle works. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a couple of basic points- things that struck me in the immediate. Per WP:LEADLENGTH, the lead should really be "Two or three paragraphs" for an article this size. Also, about the images; considering the IB is on the right-hand side, five out of the six pics are also on the right, with only one on the left. Do you think it would benefit visually from being evened out- or were you deliberately trying to avoid the 'classic' L/R/L/R/L/R down the page? Nice article though particularly as ony a couple of years ago it started off as a redirect :) — fortunavelut luna 13:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This article is the subject of my favourite diorama at the Australian War Memorial, which I've taken the liberty of adding a photo of to the infobox - please remove/move if you see fit, of course. I have the following comments and suggestions:

  • I'd suggest tweaking the first sentence to specify who the battle was fought between
  •  Done
  • What condition was the 50th Reserve Division in at the time of the battle? As I understand it, the German units took pretty heavy casualties and supplies were often a problem
  • According to Bean, its morale was still high on 5 April, so I think it is fair to assume it was the same on 28 March, added a bit.
  • "but the orders did not reach the divisions in time" - can you say why not? (presumably due to a reliance on couriers as telephones weren't available)
  • Bean doesn't say.
  • "Although the Official History is silent on who was responsible for this debacle, in his notebooks, Bean blamed Imlay" - the series and Bean should be linked, and it would be helpful to quickly note here who Bean was
  • Good point, not sure how I missed that...
  • "According to Deayton, the defensive deficiencies of the forward positions along the railway line were obvious" - this sticks out by itself at the moment, at the end of a para noting the success of the defence. Can it be expanded upon and/or moved?
  • G'day Nick, I've expanded the description of the ground under "Allied dispositions" to explain why it was such a problem. Let me know if you think more needs doing? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anything be said about how this battle has been remembered? The fact that it was selected as the subject for one of the AWM's original dioramas, which remains on display along with some items from the battle in the new WW1 galleries, suggests it's regarded as being one of the AIF's more memorable engagements. Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day Nick, I strongly suspect from the AWM art entry which includes a photo of the diorama, that it is of Second Dernancourt, rather than this battle a week earlier. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, removed ;) I was a bit confused when this article didn't describe vast numbers of Germans rushing at plucky Australian Lewis Gunners Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed - great work. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling down the McDougall image. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: reviewed this one for GA and am happy with the changes since. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rupert! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments:

"The First Battle of Dernancourt was fought on 28 March 1918 near Dernancourt, in the Somme department of what is now Hauts-de-France in northern France, during World War I, between an Allied defending force and the German Army, resulting in a complete defeat of the German assault."
urg! my eyes, they bleed! How about:
The First Battle of Dernancourt was a battle during World War I fought on 28 March 1918 near Dernancourt, in the Somme department of what is now Hauts-de-France in northern France. The battle whatever troops pf an Allied defending force including fresh Australian units against the German Army, resulting in a complete defeat of the German assault.
And put a para break there too.
  •  Done
"and with the British 35th Division" - comma
  •  Done
"and Buire-sur-l'Ancre. The main German" - para break
  •  Done
"nowhere were the Germans able to break" - "the Germans failed to break through through the British/Australian defences."
  •  Done
"apparent to the Allies that a large German offensive was pending on the Western Front" - do we really need to say Western Front at this point?
  •  Done
"Walter Norris Congreve. The commander" - para break
  •  Done
"remnants of the 9th (Scottish) Division which" - where are they on the map? Had they left already?
  • They had been relieved by that point, per first sentence of this section.
"A mushroom-shaped feature" - I'm not sure what "mushroom-shaped" would refer to. The top is larger that the bottom? It has that shape as seen from the top on a map? The map doesn't seem to show this, although I can see the change in direction of the railway you mention.
  • This is how Bean describes it, I assume that he means a mushroom with the umbrella bit being where the two Australian battalions are, and the stem where the "Aust" in 12 Aust Bde is.
"the railway line since, if it was not garrisoned" - the railway line; if it was...
  •  Done
"Germans back across the flats into some buildings, and then out of there" - out of where, the buildings? If so, did they remain in the buildings?
  • reworded
"Moving in artillery formation," - what is this? do you mean a formation to prevent loses from arty? if so, is there another term or link possible?
  •  Done added a note
"losing another 240. Despite the withdrawal" - para break.
  •  Done
The map shows a unit called the "19 NF", but I don't see any description of this in the text. It seems to have been the target of the 230RIR, which in the text is the 2nd Tyneside. Is the 19th the 2nd?
  • Yes. They are referred to as just the 19th Northumberland Fusiliers by Bean, but I've used the full title when I've introduced them, then a shortened version later.
At the end, parts of the 230 are seen in Albert, which is a long way off. Is this referring to Dernancourt or some other location?
  • No, they were in Albert, which was on the far northern flank of the 48th Battalion. You can see it in the maps.

That's it for now! Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Maury! Let me know what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good, two more items:

  • "with the Australians losing around 137 killed or wounded." - the infobox puts all allied casualties at 137, but the body definitely describes British losses as well.
  • 19 NF vs. 2nd Tyneside - add a note in the caption of the first map to this effect.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • All done, Maury. The British casualties are not provided in any sources I've seen, so I've split it into Australians and British in the infobox. Does that work for you? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We work with what we have! Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2017 (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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

German destroyer Z1 Leberecht Maass[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk), Sturmvogel_66 (talk)

German destroyer Z1 Leberecht Maass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a GA article, and I believe that it meets the criteria for A-class. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Leberecht_Maass1.jpg is tagged as lacking author info and could use a caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done

Comment by Indy beetle[edit]

I see you've made the short citation, but the full reference at the bottom of the page is missing. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SupportCommentsby auntieruth[edit]

  • Indy beetle has a good point.
  •  Done
  • I've made some minor tweaks. in the lead and here.
  • Question: was this ship constructed in contravention of 181 and 190 of the Versailles Treaty? It looks like it, both in timing and long tons, and, if so, it's worth mentioning. auntieruth (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have access to my books rn; but I seem to remember them not violating it (I believe another treaty made by the British superseded the 800 ton limit for Destroyer replacement. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ranger Steve[edit]

I have concerns about this article, which I've come to after seeing Z39 at FAC. Although the requirements for A class are not as strict as FAC, there are many similarities. In this case I feel A2 is relevant (The article reflects all major threads of scholarship, reports both sides of a conflict even-handedly, and contains an appropriate amount of context.) I feel that context is entirely lacking from this article. This is especially important if the intention is to put this article to FAC immediately after it is finished here, as was the case with Z39.

This was the first destroyer to be constructed by Germany after the First World War, but there is no background to that fact. Why was it built? What evolution was there from First World War design? What strategy did Germany envisage for its destroyers? How did it impact on the Treaty of Versailles? Similarly, the Type 1934 Destroyer is only mentioned in the lead and infobox and not expanded upon at all. Her sister ships are not mentioned either, despite being part of the same order. There is a wealth of information on this in Whitley alone that should be in here. I believe that a comprehensive background section is required.

There is very little context in the career section as well. Z1's actions are described in a series of short sentences that outline what she did, but not why. Even the Second World War is not mentioned in this section (only in the lead). (By the way, if you're going to use British English as you have in Z39, may I suggest Second World War over World War 2?). Only Operation Wikinger is linked, but a summary sentence explaining what it was would be useful too. The invasion of Poland isn't explained, nor is the reason for attacking English vessels. This may sound basic, but nowhere in the article do you state that Germany was at war with these nations (except the lead, which is meant to reflect the article).

In summary, I think this article needs considerable expansion in order to meet A-Class criteria. Doing so will make it a much more suitable candidate for FAC afterwards as well. In the meantime, I must reluctantly oppose. Regards Ranger Steve Talk 10:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to support, after significant improvement of the article by Sturmvogel 66. Ranger Steve Talk 18:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, noting that Steve's concerns haven't yet been addressed, I've only taken a quick look. Thanks for your efforts so far, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • there is a red link for German design load. Other instances of "load" in the article redirect to Displacement (ship), should design load also do this? If not, is it notable enough for a stand alone article, or should a redirect to a different article be considered?
  • Citation # 1 ( Koop & Schmolke) is inconsistently formatted
  • there is a short citation to Jackson, but no corresponding full entry in the References
  • when or if Steve's concerns can be addressed or responded to, I will come and take a more thorough look
    • I've seriously trimmed the technical section which should address your first bullet point and have fixed the first ref as per your second point. I've removed the bit about the low freeboard pending a look at my sources, which removes the reference to Jackson as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've returned from my Wikibreak and will start to revise the article in response to the comments above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed my first pass at revising the article; see what y'all think. Any stray BritEng?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, Sturm, I only found one example, which I've fixed. Additionally, "North Sea and Lutjens transferred his flag..." I'm not sure if Lutjens' full name has been mentioned. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. I mentioned his full name in the second para of the service history. How does it look in general?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, seen now. The punctuation (Lütjens) threw out my control+F search. Anyway, it looks good to me, the only other things that stood out were a couple of slight inconsistencies: "displaced 2,223 long tons (2,259 t)" v. "Displacement: 2,323 long tons (2,360 t)" and the difference in dates in the infobox v. body for when it was laid down (10 October v 15 October). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good eyes, my friend! Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Significantly improved. Nice work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Parsecboy[edit]

  • It was still the Reichsmarine until 1935
    • Do want me to use that until '35 and then Kriegsmarine?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah. I'd probably also change the line in the lead to read "...German Navy (initially the Reichsmarine and then the Kriegsmarine)", with perhaps an explanatory note on the name change.
  • Didn't Hitler wait until 1935 to repudiate Versailles?
    • There's probably a difference between the armament provisions of the treaty and the treaty in its entirety. Koop & Schmolke say that Kurt von Schleicher "announced that Germany no longer felt bound by the Versailles Treaty" on 26 July 1932. I've rephrased that bit to avoid the issue since I can't verify it with the books that I have on hand.
      • I have no idea what Koop and Schmolke are talking about, since the naval clauses were still definitely in effect until 1935. The big deal about the Anglo-German Naval Treaty was the fact that it de facto removed the Versailles naval restrictions on Germany - that obviously wouldn't have been the case if Germany had already repudiated those clauses. And whatever Schleicher might have said, according to Kurt von Schleicher, on winning the chancellorship in Jan. 1933, he announced that ridding Germany of Part V (the disarmament clauses) was one of his major policy goals. Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Versailles (Art. 190) limited destroyers to 800 tons
  • pocket battleship -> heavy cruiser (or armored ship if you prefer)
  • Fix the missing umlaut in the second reference to Lütjens
  • Italicize Altmark
  • "...and might result some useful auxiliary ships for the Kriegsmarine" - something is missing here
  • Luftwaffe probably ought to be italicized
  • Ditto with operation names like Nordmark and Wikinger. Parsecboy (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • All addressed except for the Reichsmarine/Kriegsmarine thing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2017 (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 Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

British hydrogen bomb programme[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

British hydrogen bomb programme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

After High Explosive Research comes the British hydrogen bomb programme. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Hawkeye, this looks good to me. I made a couple of minor tweaks and I have the following suggestions/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • at five paragraphs, the lead is possibly a bit long (I believe four is the recommended length). If you merge the short first paragraph with the second, this would be resolved without losing anything
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Operation Grapple May 1957.jpg": recommend adding an English description to the description page
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:James Chadwick, Leslie Groves, Richard Tolman, & Henry deWolf Smyth.jpg": currently has a date of 2013, but suggest adjusting this to the date of when the photo was taken
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Survey Ship HMNZS Lachlan in Dusky Sound (12954922013).jpg": the description probably needs tweaking slightly to remove language that appears in the voice of the source (i.e "For updates on our..." and "follow us on Twitter")
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are a few overlinked terms: John Anderson, 1st Viscount Waverley, Soviet Union, Los Alamos Laboratory, Blue Danube (nuclear weapon), boosted fission weapon
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "device in the "megaton range" — one with": should be an unspaced emdash or spaced endash
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • not a lot stood out WRT the prose, but I will have another read tomorrow with fresh eyes
  • final suggestion, I notice that the article only has a couple of categories. I wonder if there might be a few more that are relevant, but it is only a minor thing, of course. Anyway, all the best for taking this article towards FA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work as always. A few comments:

  • A few mentions of the United States could probably be shortened to US (or U.S. if you prefer).
  • from a Vickers Valiant bomber piloted by Isn't the type of plane and certainly the name of the pilot a little too much detail, especially in the lead?
    checkY I didn't think so, but I've dropped it. (The reference to the plane and pilot, not the bomb.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term was already familiar That sentence doesn't seem like a particularly crucial detail in the background.
    checkY Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we pare back the background section at all? I know you're summarising lengthy articles on important subjects (I've reviewed many of them!) but at some point you have to send the reader to one of those articles if they want more detail. We don't need extensive detail on the Manhattan Project and nuclear weapons development, just enough that the reader can tell where this bit of history fits into the jigsaw.
    checkY I have pared the section back to half its size. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whose quote is "became very much less special"?
    Margaret Gowing. Per the footnote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the bit about Canada becoming a partner immediately relevant to this article?
    checkY No; removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • D notice No. 25 prohibited D Notices don't prohibit, per se, they're officially just requests even though it's almost unheard of for the mainstream media to defy one
    checkY How about "forbid"? We have a similar system in Australia. They are nominally voluntary too, but the government can always amend the Crime Act to add penalties. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • after the October 1951 election is probably unnecessary; stating that he replaced Attlee is probably sufficient for the purposes of this article, like you do with Eisenhower and Truman later on.
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can probably get away with referring to the Marquess of Salisbury as just Salisbury on subsequent mentions
    checkY Is that how they are normally referred to? Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    British aristocratic titles are a little weird, but I'm certain this is correct; cf Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, who is invariably known as "Wellington". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hulme's daughter's murder conviction seems a little off-topic; we don't really need to know much about these people beyond their involvement in in the H bomb project.
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • by a Vickers Valiant bomber of No. 49 Squadron RAF piloted by Wing Commander Kenneth Hubbard I can see the case for including the aircraft type, but do we really need to know the pilot and the squadron he belonged to? In the Operation Grapple article, sure, but this article should be a higher-level overview.
    checkY Originally, the Grapple article was very sparse. I overhauled it after writing this one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made a handful of edits to trim down some details, particularly dates, but otherwise there's not a lot else to criticise. The content is outstanding, but it could probably be trimmed by a few hundred words to avoid overloading the reader with names and dates and bits of background that didn't directly affect this programme. Hope this helps. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the responses and the paring back, so support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Hawkeye, this is looking good. A few minor comments from me:

  • link Klaus Fuchs
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • consistency between Joe 4 and Joe-19
     Done Note that the Joe 1 article is in two minds over the matter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • second instance of John Corner should just be Corner
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another excellent article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:07, 16 October 2017 (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 Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

South China Sea raid[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

South China Sea raid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The South China Sea raid was among the most successful aircraft carrier operations of World War II. In mid January 1945 the US Navy's main strike force, the Third Fleet, ran riot in the sea. While its primary target was two Japanese battleships wrongly believed to be in the area, the Third Fleet's carriers conducted a series of devastating attacks on Japanese convoys, ports and airfields. The Americans didn't have it all their own way though, as a raid on Hong Kong ended in failure and the US Government had to pay reparations to Portugal for attacking Macau. The end result though was a significant American victory.

Despite the importance of this operation, we didn't have an article on it until I started it in December last year (soon after a trip to Hong Kong!). The article passed a GA review in February, and has now been further expanded and improved. I'm hopeful that the A-class criteria are now met, but would appreciate any suggestions for improving the article, especially regarding a possible FA nomination. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Not much to say I'm afraid. I made a minor change. I have some suggestions, mainly for FA nomination:

  • I would link Samuel Eliot Morison.
  • I would have been inclined to specify the names of the carriers involved.
    • The problem is that there were a lot of them, and only one or two played a stand-out role. This might best be handled through an order of battle article, which would be quite useful given that it took me a bit of digging to figure out the composition of the Third Fleet at this time. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      But you have a full OrBat in Morison, pp. 315-322. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's missing some components (eg, the hunter killer escort carrier group), and is for a broad period of time rather than this raid. From memory, the Royal Navy War with Japan book has a more specific order of battle. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And to distinguish between the fleet and light carriers
    Note that you do distinguish them later. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might have mentioned Typhoon Cobra
    • Will do, though briefly as it wasn't that significant to this operation. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reynolds (p. 296) mentions that the large numbers of operational accidents made have been attributable to Marine Corps pilots inexperienced in carrier landings. But I have personal doubts here - there were only two USMC squadrons present, VMF-124 and VMF-213 on Essex.
    • I found that I needed to take Reynolds with a fair amount of salt: while he provides some useful details, he has a lot of axes to grind. Given how bad the weather was throughout this operation, it doesn't seem surprising so many aircraft crashed. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were doubts about the command ability of both Halsey and McCain
    • I have't seen any sources which criticise Halsey's leadership of this particular operation (though Nimitz knocking back his initial proposal to launch the raid is suggestive), and I've noted the only instance mentioned in the sources where McCain made a bad call. This seems to have been one of the pair's successes. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before reaching Cam Ranh Bay" sounds confusing. I would go with "returning to Cam Ranh Bay".
  • "Medium and heavy bombers also raided Japanese-held ports across the South China Sea area." Mention that this becomes possible when Zamboanga and Palawan are captured in February and March 1945.
    • Clarified a bit, but do you have a source which specifies these bases? Craven and Cate don't name them. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Mortensen just says: "Only in 1945, as Allied air units moved into Philippine bases, did the Far east Air Forces reach positions permitting a sustained attack on Japanese shipping in the South China Sea". (p. 489) I'd go with that. This is because some of the units mentioned operated from Luzon and Mindoro against the Hong Kong area. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image Review
Source review
  • Spot checks: 6, 8, 24, 29, 30, 31, 39, 42, 61, 66 - all okay
  • FN21: "and only conduct small-scale attacks elsewhere". In fact, a campaign of attrition is called for.
  • FN169: The figures in the article do not match Morison, who has 44 ships sunk, 15 warships and 29 merchant ships
    • That's a good point - I'll add a note clarifying the differences between the sources Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your review Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Nice work, Nick. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "2.00 pm" and "6.00 am": per MOS:TIME these should use colons instead of full stops
  • " 7.31 PM" --> "7:31 pm"
  • there are some overlinked terms: escort carrier, United States Seventh Fleet, destroyer escort, Shantou
  • "was organised into three...": should probably be "was organized into three..." (if US English variation is intended)
  • "authorised it to enter..." as per above: "authorized it to enter..."
  • "refuelled" --> "refueled"
  • "reorganised" --> "reorganized"
  • "apologised" --> "apologized"
  • "defence" --> "defense"
  • "File:US Navy Helldiver flying over a burning Japanese tanker January 1945.jpg": the source link on the image description page appears to be dead
    • Urgh, and their database doesn't seem to be working well. I'll track down a replacement link or swap another image in. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't able to find a replacement link, so have swapped in a different image. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there an OCLC number for Admiral Halsey's Story?
    • Added. Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport This article is in great shape. I have a few comments:

  • I don't think Northwestern Luzon is a proper noun, so drop the initial N
    • Done, and a hyphen added
  • later you use south-west and north-west a couple of times, suggest consistency of hyphenation (or not) in compass points
  • suggest "for several more months, I misread it the first time
  • what type of aircraft contributed most to the Japanese shipping losses on 12 January? Is that info available?
    • The sources don't say, unfortunately. Nick-D (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is still a PM rather than pm
    • Fixed
  • consistency with times, there is an example of 10 pm but another hour time is given as 2:00 pm
  • suggest "In 1995 the historian"
  • there is an instance of New York City in the location fields of the Works consulted, the rest are just New York
    • Standardised on New York City (which I think is the norm here in regards to publishing details, especially as there are some significant publishers in other parts of the state) Nick-D (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would just add a bit to the lead on the results of the other attacks, as well as a summary of the losses on both sides
    • I've added a bit more - it's a bit tricky to add more to the lead given that the figures available include the causalities from the preliminary attacks on Formosa and the Philippines and subsequent attacks on Okinawa and surrounds, as well as the raid proper. Nick-D (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, tracking very well. Well done on an interesting read. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2017 (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 HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Grapple[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

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

Toolbox

I gathered a great deal of material on Operation Grapple while building the article on the British hydrogen bomb programme. So I thought I would improve it too, and nominate it for an A class review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support and image review
I just reviewed this article pretty comprehensively at GAN, and also looked at the image licensing as part of that review. I believe it meets the Military history A-Class criteria including that the images are appropriately licensed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment -- Don't know if I'll get to do a full review but I thought I'd stop by here and query the licensing for the Oulton portrait, which I came across while doing a ce and B-Class review for the guy's article. While I don't necessarily doubt that the picture is held by the family, that doesn't make it a "family photo", as in taken by the family -- it looks more like an official RAF portrait, in which case I wonder about the licensing employed at the moment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about that too - and for the same reason. Usually for each Featured Article I write I create a couple of Good Articles on side topics as spinoffs. In this case I improved the article on Oulton. So I was thinking about the image. I have added a Fair Use rationale, and removed it from this article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Hawkeye. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Nice work, I believe that this meets the A-class criteria. I made a few minor tweaks, and have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "which was 25 kilotonnes of TNT (100 TJ) Menzies": suggest adding a full stop before "Menzies"
    checkY added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing I haven't been able to find is where these restrictions on bomb yields in Australia came from. Lorna Arnold points out that they were repeatedly exceeded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • this sentence is missing something: "Core boosting using tritium gas and external boosting with layers of lithium deuteride, allowing a smaller, lighter Tom for two-stage devices"
    checkY re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • this sentence doesn't seem quite right grammatically speaking: "Shackleton had detected the SS Effie, an old Victory ship now flying the Liberian flag, had been sighted in the exclusion zone"
    checkY re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • not sure about the formatting or ref # 153 (Norris), which seems inconsistent with the other citations
    checkY removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Survey Ship HMNZS Lachlan in Dusky Sound (12954922013).jpg": currently has a date of "4 March 2014", but this is probably the Flikr upload date, not the date it was actually taken
    checkY Not sure of the exact date. Added "c. 1950" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:HMS Warrior (R31) MOD 45139702.jpg": date probably should be adjusted and the source link appears to be dead:
    checkY It's not dead; it's just an ephemeral URL. Switched to a (hopefully) better one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:International Diplomacy.jpg": not sure about this licence, does "PD-UKGov" apply?
    checkY Yes, it does. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, nice work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments It's great to see a high quality article on this important topic. I have the following comments and suggestions:

  • "The search for a location continued, with Malden Island and McKean Island being considered" - given that the political status of the various potential test sites is a feature of this para, I'd suggest identifying who administered these islands
    checkY They were uninhabited, but claimed by both Britain and the United States, under the notorious Guano Act. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three Avro Shackletons from No 240 Squadron were sent to conduct an aerial reconnaissance" - do we know where they operated from? (did another country agree for them to fly from its territory to conduct this survey?)
    Canton Island. This was also claimed by both Britain and the United States. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "The Guano Islands Act is perhaps the most interesting federal example. Passed in 1856 during the administration of Franklin Pierce, the act was designed to address one of the most important problems then facing the nation. Namely, a critical shortage of bird poop. (If you guessed the problem was “escalating tensions over slavery,” you have overestimated the administration of Franklin Pierce.)" [9] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were Christmas Island and the other nearby islands inhabited? If so, where they consulted about hosting the test program and did they receive any kind of compensation?
    checkY They were uninhabited. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might also be worth noting that these were tropical islands given the implications this had on the logistics for the operation
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When documents on the series began to be declassified in the 1990s, they were denounced as a hoax" - this is unclear. Where the official files called a hoax, or the claims that the test had been one of a thermonuclear weapon?
    checkYThat the test had been a successful h-bomb test. Improved the wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is still a bit unclear - who denounced them as a hoax? Could you say that the British Government's position was revealed to have been a hoax? Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The allegation first came up in an article by Norman Dombey and Eric Grove, "Britain's Thermonuclear Bluff", in the London Review of Books in October 1992. [10] This was based on sources then available, and alleged (correctly) that "Orange Herald was not an H-bomb at all, but a large A-bomb" and that "none of the four nuclear tests held in 1957 was a hydrogen bomb test as we now understand it". The conspiracy theory was that the UK tricked the US into sharing technology under the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement. The release of documents appeared to confirm this, resulting in headlines like Britain's H-bomb triumph a hoax: Patriotic scientists created an elaborate and highly secret bluff to disguise dud weapons. [11] It fell to Lorna Arnold to correct the record in her book Britain and the H-bomb in 2001. As the official historian, she had access to the documents all along. The article follows this account. (See her article for the story of how it was written.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened to all the personnel, aircraft and ships between each series of tests? Were they sent back to the UK, or did they hang around on Christmas Island (or a bit of both?). If they were kept on Christmas Island, what did they do, and what was morale like?
    Both. Most of the Army, RAF and AERE personnel remained on Christmas Island. You would think they would have preferred it to the UK, but by all accounts this wasn't the case. I don't have all my books with me here, so I will update the article when I get back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY I have now added two paragraphs on maintenance of morale on Christmas Island. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • When were the evacuated civilians returned to their homes?
    I'm not sure. Soon after. This will need looking up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY The book you recommended had the answer. Added a paragraph about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 22 August 1958, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower announced a moratorium on nuclear testing, effective 31 October 1958. This did not mean an immediate end to testing; on the contrary, the United States, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom all rushed to perform as much testing as possible before the deadline" - this is a bit unclear: was this a unilateral US moratorium which the other countries felt obliged to also honour, or an agreement by the three countries? Nick-D (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY It was an offer to get the test ban talks moving again. There was an agreement. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It was considered vitally important that Britain was seen as a peace-loving nation totally committed to the abolition of nuclear weapons; but of course this could not be allowed to stand in the way of the British nuclear weapons programme. The situation remains the same today. According to Baroness Warsi, the Senior Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in 2014:
    We are committed to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons and firmly believe that the best way to achieve this is through gradual disarmament negotiated through a step-by-step approach within the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The UK has a strong record on nuclear disarmament and continues to be at the forefront of international efforts to control proliferation, and to make progress towards multilateral nuclear disarmament.[12]
  • All issues should be addressed now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Belated) Support All my comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2017 (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 AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Boeing CH-47 Chinook has had a lengthy and complex history with the Australian Defence Force. Twelve CH-47Cs were ordered for the RAAF in 1969, but due to budgetary constraints no more than six were ever operational at any point in time. The helicopters were withdrawn from service in 1989, only for four of them to later be reactivated, upgraded to CH-47Ds and transferred to the Army when it was realised that their capabilities were needed. The Army later purchased four more CH-47Ds, and the fleet was recently replaced with 10 brand-new CH-47Fs. The type was used in the Iraq War, though possibly only for carrying cargo in a friendly country, and saw extensive combat in Afghanistan where two were destroyed as a result of flying accidents.

I developed this article to GA status last year, and have since improved and expanded it by drawing on the somewhat patchy sources on the helicopter's history. I'm hopeful that it now meets the A-class criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ian[edit]

I reviewed/passed for GA and have inspected the changes made since then, tweaking/trimming mainly for prose. This is a solid piece of work on the somewhat convoluted history of this type's Australian service.

Referencing -- all reliable sources; I'll try to do a formatting check before this closes but it won't be a stopper in any case.

Images -- great work getting all the pictures; licensing looks appropriate for all, the only things being that the source for File:RAAF Chinook.jpg times out for me, and the sources for File:Australian Army Boeing CH-47D Chinook CBR Gilbert.jpg and File:Australian Army CH-47F Chinook being loaded on a USAF C-5 Galaxy at Dover Air Force Base.jpg look dead.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. I've updated the links for those photos - finding a replacement for the last one, and archived links for the other two. Nick-D (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

Oooh. No offence to your fighter jets, you've done some great work there, but I do like a good old-fashioned workhorse. Just a few quibbles:

  • have mainly been used to support Army units in Australian service reads a little odd, and we've established that we're talking about Chinooks in an Australian context from the title and the first paragraph. I'd suggest simply removing "in Australian service".
  • this was in line with the Army's preference Did the army have much input in this decision-making process, or is it just that they agreed with the air force's choice after the fact?
    • The source doesn't specify. Given how siloed the services were at this time, with their procurement decisions often being made independently of one another, it's unlikely that the Army had much formal input. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know much about Raw's rationale for recommending the CH-53 or his feelings about the rejection of the report?
    • Unfortunately not. I also looked into this for the bio on Peter Raw, but not much was available. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • could transport up to 33 passengers or 11,129 kilograms (24,535 lb) of cargo Do we know if that's the hold capacity or including the underslung load?
    • The source doesn't specify unfortunately - this is the maximum loaded weight minus the unloaded weight. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • longest distance a helicopter had flown up to that time An estimate of the distance would be nice for context.
    • 14,000 km - I've added this. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A15-011 crashed when one of its engine turbines disintegrated Do we know the ultimate cause of this? Presumably there were boards of inquiry or similar into the two crashes. Their findings would be an interesting addition if they can be found but I appreciate that might not be easy and the effort might not be worth the return.
    • Sources for A15-011 don't appear to be available - there aren't any records in the National Archives or National Library of Australia. As the crash didn't lead to any fatalities, there may not have been a full-scale inquiry. I see that there's a summary of the loss of A15-001 [13], which I'll consult next weekend. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added a little bit more on the loss of A15-001. There isn't a great deal extra to say though: the helicopter crashed after striking a power line which was not marked on the maps used to plan the sortie and was very difficult to see from the air. The COI recommended that the squadron improve its map-keeping to prevent this from re-occurring. Nick-D (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • by this time the RAAF no longer had significant expertise in operating the type But surely the army didn't have *any* experience?
    • Indeed - and the Army was in the process of mismanaging the Blackhawk fleet to such an extent at the time that it became mostly inoperable by the mid-1990s. However, this was done to concentrate all the helicopters with the same service. I've clarified this. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      The article manages to touch upon many sore points in Army-RAAF relations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In November 2005 the Australian Government authorised a program of urgent upgrades What was the urgency? Were they needed for a particular operation or was there an incident that highlighted vulnerabilities?
    • It was to prepare them for Afghanistan - I've clarified this. Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, excellent work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that. You can't include information that's not available and what's left is only very, very minor details. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Hawkeye7

Agree that this article is of a high standard, and worthy of Featured Article status. The article touches on an issue of great embarrassment to both the Army and the RAAF: the transfer of the Chinooks to to the Army. You might consider this source. [14] That the 155mm howitzers could not be moved by the air was did not pass unnoticed.[15] On looking into this I noted that "the Chinook costs about $7,080 per hour to operate, and the serviceability rates, despite the best efforts of the RAAF, have been very low. Australia's new battlefield helicopter, the Black Hawk, which will provide improved troop mobility, costs only $2,390". [16] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks a lot for your review and that book - it says bluntly what various other sources hint at. Nick-D (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2017 (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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Mells War Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

Mells War Memorial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I've been saving this one. I've been working on it on and off for a while but I've just put the finishing touches to it and I think it's ready. This is something a bit different. Mells is not a major city (its population in 2011 was just over 600), but the story of its war memorial poignantly tells the story of Britain in the First World War. People from all walks of life went off to the front, 21 of them never to return; Arthur Asquith (the prime minister's son, no less) had the unenviable task of unveiling a memorial on which his own brother and brother-in-law were listed. I'd love to take this to FAC, so as ever all feedback is much appreciated! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias talk
  • References: 15 and 16 need full-stops at the end for consistency with the rest.
    • Well spotted, done.
  • Images are all appropriately licensed. The A-class criteria doesn't seem to require alt text, but it would be a nice addition all the same.
    • I'm not sure what the alt text could usefully say given that the memorial is described in detail in the text and the purpose of alt text is to give a description of the image but I'm open to suggestions.
  • "..including memorials to sons from the families killed in the war." The word here is a bit ambiguous; it could be read that the families were killed. Also, the use of "sons" jars a little with later in the lead, when it talks about someone's brother. Maybe change "sons" to "men", and rephrase to avoid ambiguity.
    • I've reworded to avoid the garden path but I think "sons" is an important detail, given that it was their parents who commissioned Lutyens.
  • "..from the Doulting Stone Quarry in nearby Doulting.." Probably no need for the repetition of Doulting; maybe just "..from the stone quarry in nearby Doulting.."
    • Done.
  • "..for his war war memorials.." Remove repetition of "war".
    • Done.
  • "Mells is the most intricate of three of Lutyens' civic war memorials featuring.." Feels a bit clunky, how about "Mells is the most intricate of Lutyens' three civic war memorials featuring..."
    • You're the second person to query this so I've rewritten that passage. Let me know what you think.

Overall a nice article, very little to quibble really. Harrias talk 13:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the comments, and for the keen eye, Harrias! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, nothing more to quibble from me, good work. Harrias talk 16:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is a very interesting, and very moving, article. I have the following minor comments:

  • "Lutyens also accompanied the family in placing a memorial," - this wording is a bit unclear. Can a more specific word than 'accompanied' be used?
    • It just means he was there (he and Lady Horner were apparently quite close friends), but on reflection I'm not sure it's a necessary detail so I've written it out.
  • The article implies that the Horner family essentially commissioned the memorial - is this correct, or was it commissioned by the local council or similar?
    • They certainly made the introduction and led the whole process. Even in the early 20th century the manor still dominated village life so it's entirely possible that they took things into their own hands. There was some public consultation (as detailed in the article) but if the council or some formal committee was involved, the sources don't mention it.
  • When was the memorial to the Second World War added? Nick-D (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't know. This is something I've found in many of my memorial articles—it seems nobody seems to have thought to record the details of the WWII additions to WWI memorials. Thanks very much for reading, Nick! Glad you found it interesting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's interesting - the heritage listings for comparable Australian memorials tend to have these kinds of details. I guess we have a lot less heritage to research and record though!

Support My comments are now addressed - thanks for the very quick response. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
Comments
  • "the Thiepval Memorial to the Missing on the Somme" This sounds odd to me, as I'm used to the Somme being a department (although Wikipedi informs me it was abolished in a reorganisation in 2016) and I'd normally say "in the Somme". Would "of the Somme" be better?
    • I've always thought of it as an area, not just an administrative unit, along the lines of, say, Salisbury Plain, but "of" works just as well.
      Oh. I though Salisbury Plain was an Army base, like Puckapunyal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surprised that Lady Frances Horner doesn't have an article, given that she has an ODNB entry. And what do you mean by "originally a 16th-century manor house in the centre of the village"? Has it been converted into a pub?
    • Note that I was also initially confused by this; but the subsequent sentence (and the article) helped to clarify that it was originally a 16th century manor house that was demolished, and then rebuilt by Lutyens in the 20th century. But given that it threw us both, it might be worth seeing if it can be reworded to make it easier to follow in the article? Harrias talk 19:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does dating originally from the 16th century work better? And if it makes you feel better it's not a gender thing this time—Sir John doesn't have an article either. Both are clearly notable though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Kensington School of Art the Kensington School of Art in London?
    • I think so, but art schools are not m speciality. I've created a redirect though.
  • Why are only 14 villagers listed if 21 died?
    • I wondered this as well. My best guess is it includes later DOWs, or the criteria were changed (as happened in several places), for example to include sons who had moved away but whose parents still lived in the village, or men shot for cowardice weren't originally included (again not that uncommon). But I can't source any of that, it's just conjecture.
  • The motif of St George fighting the dragon is very common in Australia, because Sunday 25 April 1915 was the Sunday after St George's Day.
    At the local church in Melbourne that I used to attend, not only was there a painting of St George standing over the dead dragon like a British 19th century big game hunter with the legend "Gallipoli 1915", but the stained glass windows depicted Christ's disciples in AIF uniforms with slouch hats. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not very common in modern British art. One of the most prominent examples on a war memorial is Newcastle (upon Tyne, not New South Wales ;) ), which doesn't have an article. Yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we need a footnote in the See Also section?
    • We don't really; it was added by another editor and I kept it because it seems harmless at worst, but if you think it should go it can.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 8 October 2017 (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 Biblioworm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz[edit]

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This should meet the standards for A-class articles. Seydlitz was one of Frederick the Great's foremost cavalry generals, responsible for the organization. I'll appreciate any comments and suggestions. auntieruth (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • I assume that there are no contemporary portraits and I think the captions of the two in the article should make clear that they were much later. E.g. for the first "Portrait of von Seydlitz by Adolph Menzel, 1854" there are some 18th cventury engravings of him, but I couldn't find any with the proper licensing.
  • Several nit-pickings with the first paragraph: "usually credited with the development of the Prussian cavalry to its efficient level of performance in the Seven Years' War" Why "usually"? most of the sources attribute the highly successful cavalry to him, but not all, however, the ones who don't just don't say anything. You do not cite any dissenting opinions. "Born to a cavalry captain, his father died when he was young." This sounds a bit clumsy. Maybe "He was the son of a cavalry captain, who died when he was young." "also known as the "Mad" Margrave. His superb horsemanship and his recklessness combined to make him a stand-out subaltern" This confused me. "His" appears to refer to the Margrave, but the reference to the subaltern makes clear this is wrong. fixed the other items.
  • "He was not well enough to participate in the annual campaigns until 1761 and even then his fellow officers questioned his physical fitness." In the main text you say that the doubts were because he had served exclusively with cavalry.
  • " The Margrave was himself was a reckless young man" This is a bit misleading as he would then have been 35. Maybe "The Margrave was reckless".
  • "Margrave's Cuirassier Regiment" You imply below that it was no longer his regiment - that he had been replaced as colonel - or had he been promoted and the new colonel was at odds with his senior officer? this was typical. It was the Margrave's regiment. But since he was a noble, there was a colonel running the show--the margrave collecting the glory.
  • "but these were turned back" By order or by enemy resistance?
  • "the benefit of close support during a cavalry charge" Close support between cavalry and infantry? I think the phrase meant that the various units of cavalry attacked together --closely packed--....Frederick's cavalry was famous for its closely packed charges in which horses were shoulder to shoulder, nose to tail, and the men rode with their knees touching.
  • "after a successful revue" review?
  • "no Prussian cavalry man would allow himself to be attacked" In battle or in civil life? yes
  • "According to Varnhagen, Seydlitz performed best at taverns" This sounds like a put down! Did not he perform best on the battlefield? Varnhagen was not a fan.
  • "(reportedly it was the syphilis which destroyed his marriage)" Was his wife unfaithful because of his syphilis? Probably she wanted nothing to do with him because of it. The sources are coy about this.
  • A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: Nice work, Ruth. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and if he knew French, he preferred German and wrote it with a "fine, firm hand, unusually..." (suggest attributing this quote in text), e.g. "and according to X, if he knew French, he preferred..." done
  • there are a couple of overlinked terms: East Prussia, Battle of Kolin, syphilis....second link on syphilis leads to tertiary. others are fixed.
  • in Note 2, if possible I suggest adding a harvtxt ref for Lawley and Poten, like you have in Note 3 done
  • is there a citation or Note 5? It was in note Text, but It had wrong template. Fixed now.
  • in the Alphabetical listing of sources, shouldn't "Lippe-Weissenfeld" come after Lawley? fixed
  • in the Further reading section, suggest that these should be presented with surnames first, for consistency with the section above fixed
  • "File:Seydlitz at Rossbach.jpg": suggest adding an English description to this file on Commons, also I couldn't find the image at the cited source. Is there a better source for this? Added English. I couldn't find it either. Looking, and if I con't find one, i'll take ot out shallI? auntieruth (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably best, however, you might be able to find a different source here: [17]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

Excellent work, just a few quibbles:

  • Born to a cavalry captain, his father died when he was young His father was a born to a cavalry captain or he was? fixed
  • Seydlitz become legendary throughout Typo? Should that be became? yep
  • the father died in 1728 seems like an odd way to refer to him. Can we not just use his name? fixed
  • old King died and I believe the MoS would have a lower-case k there and for all other instances where it's not followed by a name. really?...a king...the King...a president....the President....MOS:CAps says When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g., the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II
  • the colonel did not send reinforcements was this part of the colonel's grudge, or negligence, or were the infantry busy elsewhere? grudge/. clarified
  • The King exchanged an Austrian captain for the cornet It's not absolutely clear that "the cornet" is Seydlitz; can we use his name instead? cleaned up
  • Hans Karl von Winterfeldt, a good judge of character according to whom? ccording to the King
  • support any movement of infantry, or any response from the enemy I don't think you mean support an response from the enemy fixed
  • useless pistols or carbines Is "useless" the source's opinion or yours? source. twiddled.
  • In his hands, [...] Frederick promoted him suggest him → Seydlitz for clarity. yes
  • no Prussian cavalry man would allow himself Isn't "cavalryman" (one word) more common? yes
  • lost his life I think "died" is preferred per WP:EUPH
  • he and a cavalry brigade checked the Austrian pursuit Wait, what Austrian pursuit? Perhaps needs another sentence of background for context.
  • brilliant charge Your adjective or the source's? source. taken out
  • intrepid leadership Ditto. ditto
  • a couple dozen cannons I think the MoS would prefer "24", and as a Brit "couple dozen" (as opposed to couple of dozen) seems like atrocious grammar to me source said couple dozen, another one says 18.
  • Unfortunately, Seydlitz had been wounded "unfortunately" looks like editorialising removed
  • syphilis is linked twice in one section yess, linked to tertiary syphylis

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm happy with the responses above and can't see nay reason to hold up the article's progress. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:28, 29 September 2017 (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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Allied logistics in the Kokoda Track campaign[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Allied logistics in the Kokoda Track campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I promised to write an article on Allied logistics on the Kokoda Track. It took a bit more effort than I expected. I am sending it here to get as many comments as possible. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cinderella157[edit]

I have been following this and will participate in the review but would like to await some other participation first. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some comments on this article's talk page. At this point, these are mostly resolved. I agree with AR that it is an impressive work. The article is very much "big picture". As such, I perceive it deals not just with Kokoda but the New Guinea campaign. Much of this big picture stuff has as much to do with Kokoda as it does with Kanga Force, Milne Bay and Buna-Gona just later. It touches on developments very late in the year and would have had no impact on Kokoda. This tends to reinforce my perception. I also see that by such a big view, some of the "nuts and bolts" of supply on the track that were of perhaps critical significance get a little lost in such a broad view. There are also some details in Kokoda Track campaign#Alied logistics that have not been carried forward into this article. I could expand on this. Matters that occur to me first off would be the supply of parachutes. The critical shortage of planes forward which led to P-39s dropping supplies in belly tanks and just how significant the raid on 17 August was. It might also touch more on the organisation of carriers - some detail I omitted for brevity in the main article. As much as anything, these things make me a little cautious about how the material in the main article will be massaged in relation to this "offspring" article. If this is to be an offspring of the main article section, then there needs to be a cross-check done. Having said all of that, I am thinking it is worthwhile to discuss where this article might best sit. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have we a source for the use of P-39s dropping supplies? I sounds like the development of the "storepedo", which would be a feature of the 1943-45 campaigns. Fighters and bombers were usually preferred over transports for dropping in areas where flak or enemy fighters were a concern. The supply of parachutes was inadequate, forcing the use of free dropping. Large orders for parachutes were placed (from memory, 10,000 in Australia and 30,000 from India), but they did not arrive in time. The next big test was the Wau-Salamaua campaign, which depleted SWPA's stock of parachutes. The 17 August air raid is mentioned, and the reader can see that the loss of seven aircraft out of thirty was a significant hit. MacArthur may sound like the Black Knight but (a) he really had seen worse and (b) as he pointed out, air supply was not critical; the main LoC was the Track. Although the AAF was unable to prevent the Japanese from bombing Port Moresby, its fighter and bomber losses were heavy they never reached the point where abandonment of Port Moresby was considered on those grounds. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See McC p 131. Also NGF war diary p 7-8 & 26 of pdf. Mistakenly recalled as P39 but specifically say fighters. From Watson 1944 p 26-27: A requisition to the US was made on 21 July for 5,000 parachutes and containers. An initial delivery of 1,000 parachutes (less containers) was sent by plane on 22 September, with the remainder, sent by ship. Regarding the 17th, this occurred on the eve of Isurava when the lack of rations was already a critical factor in Potts; ability to deploy his force. A request by him for 800 carriers was met with 300. There simply wasn't the alternative resource available. NGF sig (Aug App1&2 p19&20 of pdf) indicate the supply situation and attributes the loss of Kokoda to the lack of transports earlier. The five day break caused by the raid would have commensurately eaten into the reserves. Even if the carrier force could have been ramped up straight away, it would have been nearly 6 days before this could have any impact at the front. Consequently, the 2/14th and 2/16th were not available for a concerted operation. In the situation, it is a bit like saying "let them eat cake". Putting aside the issues of MacArthur and Blamey's leadership at this critical time, these are the issues that are not immediately apparent as things stand. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will incorporate the material on the fighters, drop tanks and parachutes. I remember the incident in App 1; Whitehead replaced Scanlon at Advon, and one of his first actions was to send the transport aircraft back to Australia. Blamey went to MacArthur, and he allocated four DC-3 type aircraft.
With regard to the 17th, the article already points out that aircraft cannot operate every day, and that multi-day breaks were only to be expected. The article also explains that just because the weather is good over the Track does not mean that the transports could fly. It would not have eaten up reserves, as the Track LoC was still supplying their needs. Potts took council of his fears. The supply situation did not cause him to go onto the defensive; nor was he opposed by superior Japanese forces; it was his own lack of aggression and resolution. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The daily maintenance resupply was 15,000 lb or 200 carrier loads (near enough). For a six day carry to Isurava this would require 2,400 carriers. This does not take into account carrier rations for the whole trip (for a carrier force of this size) though there is some portion of carrier rations in the daily maintenance - perhaps 25% more would be needed. Even a two day carry forward of Myola for half his force would require 400 carriers for maintenance. Your figures for the ANGAU are not numbers of carriers on the track. My recollection is that Kienzle had less than 1800 on the track at peak strength but I don't recall when this was but I doubt it was at this time. There was a big shortfall in what could be supplied just along the track. It caused Potts to hold the 2/16th back at Myola with a plan to send the 39th out of battle to alleviate the problem. With this disposition, the track probably supplied 50% or less of daily maintenance and would have significantly consumed reserves with a break of this long. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the bit about the drop tanks and parachutes. I will check Kienzle and see if I can find out how many carriers there were on the Track. I'm pretty certain that the maximum would have been at the end of the campaign. Only 180,779 lb was dropped in August, and 306,576 lb in September, so well below 15,000 lb per day. In October though, the figure was 1.5 million lb. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pls see McC p 197. (re 15000 maintenance supply and a need for an additioal 2000 carriers to compensate) Also Horner (1978) p 126-131. "No more carriers were available, and

therefore an immediate offensive was out of the question. Potts was ordered to hold where he was and plan to advance on or about 1 September." Therefore, he was put on the defensive as a result. & Willoughby reaffirmed that an overland operation against Port Moresby should be discounted in view of the logistical difficulties of maintaining any force in strength on the Kokoda Trail. It is remarkable that GHQ recognised all the difficulties that the Japanese would have on the Trail, yet missed the point that the Australians might have similar problems." (both p131) Also Rowell to Osmar White "He recorded that Rowell ‘shrugged and said frankly: “As far as I’m concerned, I’m willing to pull back and let the enemy have the rough stuff if he wants it. I’m willing to present the Jap with the supply headache I’ve got. But there are those who think otherwise. We need a victory in the Pacific, and a lot of poor bastards have got to get killed to provide it”" (p126) I find the amount of stores delivered by air in August and then September a bit telling, since, although the number of troops forward increased in mid August, it probably decreased through September and the length of the supply line also diminished. The 17th Aug on its own may not have been catastrophic but togeather with command expectation, the missing rats and a lack of carriers these created a dilemma of consequence. Then there is the tactical situation. Even though the forces were nominally of similar size (in favour of Horii) the 2/16th was held way back and the 2/14th was only just coming forward. The 53rd was perhaps more of a liability than an asset (better to know that nobody is covering your side than to mistakenly trust the man that is there) and then there is the Japanese artillery which was a significant force multiplier (but this is an aside to your earlier comment). The key issue I see herein is the logistical implications. Your own perception is that the track was the main LoC and the impact was not that significant? Even without painting MacArthur as the Black Knight, I hope that I am making sufficient case that the combination of events were of more significance than the reader might glean from the article at present - and in an appropriately collegiate manner. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I was mistakenly working on an 80lb carry and not 40lb. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit about Rowell's response to the disaster. (We'll pass on his doubts about the wisdom of fighting in New Guinea at all. Gavin Long believed that the Japanese navy would cut Port Moresby off and it would fall like Singapore. Chester Willmot couldn't understand why Port Moresby couldn't be held like Tobruk.) I've included figures on the stores carried by pack transport. I've also read through the correspondence on air supply. LHQ and GHQ were sympathetic and responsive. What I can't find is anything from the RAAF indicating interest in air supply before the war. (Is Ian Rose around?) Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Noted -- I don't think the RAAF formed any dedicated transport squadrons until WWII, but will see if they showed any other interest in the idea... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the RAAF announced that it would for air transport squadrons in 1941. It didn't actually do so until 1942. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've combed Coulthard-Clark's The Third Brother, the dedicated history of the RAAF between the wars, and there's no discussion of the concept of air supply. On the practical side, all we hear of is small drops of food and water to lost explorers and pilots who force-landed in the outback -- appears very ad hoc, nothing systematic. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer as to why the RAAF had no dedicated casualty evacuation aircraft was that the purchase of an aircraft specifically for such an uncommon purpose was considered uneconomical. The RAAF did form a dedicated unit early in the war, No. 1 Air Ambulance Unit RAAF, which served in the Middle East. No. 2 Air Ambulance Unit RAAF was formed in 1942, and served in New Guinea from 1943, flying casualties back to Australia. Two specialised units, No. 1 Medical Air Evacuation Transport Unit RAAF and No. 2 Medical Air Evacuation Transport Unit RAAF were formed in 1944 for service in forward areas. The RAAF had no aircraft in 1942 (and with the retirement of the Cariboux, has none today) that could have landed at Myola. General Blamey (the man behind the adoption of the periscope rifle at Gallipoli) had an idea. He would acquire helicopters for the Army. The plan ran into predictable opposition; the RAAF argued that aircraft were a RAAF responsibility. After a prolonged bureaucratic battle that went all the way to the War Cabinet, the RAAF was charged with acquiring the helicopters in 1944. A drawn-out evaluation process ensued, resulting in the RAAF purchasing two Sikorsky H-5 helicopters in 1946. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We can pass on some of those things but there is a direct counterpoint to your statement in that it did put operations on the defensive and even hindered these by limiting the ability to deploy the 2/16th forward of Myola. I also note that in the preceding month that the equivalent of only five days maintenance supply was moved forward on the first stage of the track by pack transport - indicative of only 15% of the daily requirement being supplied along the track. A counterpoint to your statement: "air supply was not critical; the main LoC was the Track." Cinderella157 (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"They calculated that by 16 August only 880 carriers remained, far short of the 1500 claimed by Morris less than a fortnight earlier; one or both these figures could be inaccurate, however it probably does give an approximation of how many carriers had deserted)" Moremon p157
And you're absolutely right. What we're looking at for August is about 6,000 lb per day over the Track, and about the same by air; which falls well short of 15,000 lb. For September, we're looking at around 27,000 lb per day down the Track and 10,000 by air. In October, about 23,000 per day down the track and 50,000 by air. But these are figures for the amount despatched; we probably need to discount the track by about 10% and and the air supply by 50% for losses. So air supply was critical, and the main LoC was down the Track until October. So Rowell's action, cutting back from three battalions to two makes perfect sense; this is what could be supported. Which brings us to the absurdity of the whole exercise:
  1. There was no point in sending forces down the Track without being able to supply them, either by air or overland;
  2. GHQ could promise aircraft, but it didn't have them;
  3. Diverting aircraft to unprofitable supply missions over the Track meant foregoing critical supplies, including spare parts needed to keep the aircraft operational.
Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we now have a common understanding of of just how critical this was at this particular point in time and that it can be sourced. It is about making the significance clear in the article. I note Moremon's observation that these reversals bought the Japanese to the place where Morris (and Rowell) thought the battle should have been fought - but at a significant cost in manpower and resources. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had morning tea with John. He pointed out that the objective of the campaign to capture Buna, not hold Port Moresby. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The initial orders deploying the 39th were for the defence of Port Moresby. Subsequent orders were for the recapture of Kokoda and ultimately (later), for the capture of Buna. Any distinction is perhaps a matter of timing but also, the latter achieves the former. If we could return to the thread though and not get bogged down in semantics. The missing rats and the losses of 17 August were critical by their combination. This is about where the thread started. The situation did cause Potts to adopt a defencive posture. This cannot simply be attributed to a lack of resolve by Potts since you attribute actions to Rowell. Air supply was critical. Overland supply was well short of being able to support the force and the labour force just wasn't there. The supply situation dictated the disposition of Potts' force at the start of Isurava. You have previously argued a contrary position to each of these key points and each has been addressed, until we arrived at your last post but one. As an aside, a simple comparison of monthly figures does not consider how the length of the LoC changed over this time. However, this all comes back to addressing my initial comment of "just how significant the raid on 17 August was". Your initial response was "The 17 August air raid is mentioned, and the reader can see that the loss of seven aircraft out of thirty was a significant hit. MacArthur may sound like the Black Knight but (a) he really had seen worse and (b) as he pointed out, air supply was not critical; the main LoC was the Track." Could we please put all of this discussion to a useful end by "making the significance clear[er] in the article". Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit about 21st Infantry Brigade assuming a defensive posture. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I note your edits but these still do not address the issue - specifically, the significance of the culmination of the missing rats and the losses on 17 August. To what you have added ... By your own (of above), Potts was to adopt a defencive posture in consequence. He was to relieve the 39th to reduce the logistical pressure. This he did as the Japanese attacked. The 2/16th was held back. These things were (as you acknowledge above) in accordance with Rowell. Yes, as you quote Williams, both his battalions were present at Isurava. This is not in dispute. Equally, the matter is that the logistical circumstances and his orders in consequence dictated the disposition of his forces as much as the capacity of the track to maneuver his forces (the 2/16th) to respond to the attack. His comment that his force was never "intact and available for a concerted operation ... solely due to delays occasioned by supply" was equally true. To quote Williams, that both of his battalions were present is correct but is done in such a way that ignores the detail. It consequently creates a POV that is not neutral. Williams does report that the 2/16th did soon arrive but leans in such a way that this was inconsequential? Williams' main argument is the myth that the Australians were outnumbered significantly. I don't disagree that overall, the numbers were comparable. However, such a simplistic argument ignores (to some degree or another) the impact of Japanese artillery. While he later observes this impact, at this point (in his conclusions) he largely ignores this and concentrates on numbers. However, this particular article is about the Australian logistics; however. It is pertinent to focus on how logistics shaped the Australian battle. These edits raise as many concerns as they address. As much to the point though, is this thread and the issue of the combination of the missing rats and the raid of 17 August - which remains unaddressed despite your acknowledgement in your most recent minus two (now). Cinderella157 (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Readers, however, become aware of a tendency in almost all regimental histories, Australian included, to attribute eneiny successes to mechanical instrumentality—artillery fire, bombing and so forth—rather than to human ones; it is less hurtful to pride

Bean VI:34

I don't know what you think the article should say. It describes the 17 August air raid and its effects. That 20 replacement aircraft were sent, along with six whole squadrons. It details Rowell's decision to delay the 21st Infantry Brigade's attack on Kokoda until reserves were built up at Myola. The article is about logistics, and discusses how reserves were being built up at Myola. Was Potts' defeat the result of not having enough food or ammunition, of being heavily outnumbered, or, as you say, of faulty dispositions and tactics? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this article is about logistics. Yes, the dispositions were at fault but adopted in consequence of faulty logistics and significantly compounded by the losses of the 17th. That is what I would like it to say: "it delayed the arrival in the actual battle area of his tried 2/14th and 2/16th Battalions ... at a crucial time." (McC p199) Previously, you had suggested that the loss was not so significant because the track was the main LoC and the situation did not cause Potts to go on the defencive and you have made some edits by way of remedy. The effects you list were well down the track and did not resolve the immediate problem of a lack of planes. With only 6 days reserve and limited overland supply, the break would have consumed a significant portion of that reserve. The quantities dropped on 23 - 24 August look impressive but are only about 40% of consumption for balanced rations, without factoring in losses. The article is written such that masses given for biscuits and ration components are additional to the balanced rations and thereby raises the question of whether this is not double counting? Moremon (p179) refers to same, quoting primary sources and the quote does read to suggest that the 1500 complete rations might consist of these masses or is, at least ambiguous since it is not quoted fully. I can confirm the 7 Div sig to Maroubra [18] (p 109 of pdf). The biscuits and sundry rations were additional to the balanced rations. At 3lb a ration (a carrier load of 40 lb being 13 rations) this means that in the two days, about 4,500 standard rations (not emergency) were dropped. Without breakage or loss, this is about break-even. You indicate that the 2/27th was not sent forward so as not to compound the logistical problems further. I understand however, that it was held back more for the reason of securing PM and as divisional reserve (see McC p 202). The 39th was to be withdrawn to ease the situation but this did not happen until after Isurava. The article reads as if this actually happened before the fact. The article reads: "Potts' role was to be a defensive one until then. On 23 August, an aircraft dropped rations ...". This reads as if to suggest that these drops were the "until then" and that they solved the supply situation. Moremon treats the urgency of the situation as do most other sources. "Hamstrung by the original failure to build up supplies ahead of the Japanese attack" (Moremon p209). McC (p199) notes that Potts lost the initiative - not through action of the Japanese but through the logistical failure. Slightly out of chronology, Moremon (p150) observes: "As a result of the inability to deploy and adequately maintain a strong force in the mountains, NGF was hamstrung and Maroubra Force was withering." You do not indicate that the 2/16th was being held back around Myola in consequence. These are the reasons why Potts has made the statement in the report. The article reads as if these matters were all trifles and ultimately of no consequence to the outcome - that there is no validity in Potts' statement. Yes, our forces failed at Isurava and for a number of reasons - not just as a consequence of logistics but it was significant in how it affected the initial disposition of forces. To acknowledge the quote by Bean, it was perhaps not so much the Japanese success in destroying the aircraft but how this was responded to. Potts was obliged by Allen and Rowell to hold his forces back at Myola for a considerable time but also, to hold at Isurava (Williams p69). Logistics is as much a part of the "art" of warfare and gereralship as tactics and fighting. The logistics to support Potts broke down. A failure of logistics is just as much a failing of generalship as a failure of tactics. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS, there were human faults (per Bean) in both the missing rats and the 17 August raid and I don't dismiss these faults but highlight the consequences of the combination. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and I wish more commanders would be relieved for it; but simply restricting your operations to the available resources does not constitute logistical failure. I have re-phrased the bit about the rations to make it clearer. McC says that Rowell informed Allen that "there could be no question of sending forward the third battalion of the 21st Brigade until the supply situation was sufficiently secure to enable offensive operations" (p. 198) On 26 August, Potts "repeated his request for the 2/27th. In reply Allen, responsible for the defence of Port Moresby itself from seaborne and airborne attack, referred to the Japanese landings which had taken place early that morning at Milne Bay, under instructions from New Guinea Force stated that it was inadvisable to send the 2/27th yet, and suggested that the relief of the 39th and their return to Port Moresby be expedited". According to Anderson (p. 62) Honner argued that Isurava could not be held by only one battalion, and that the 39th Battalion should stay a little longer. I have re-worded this.
But you bring up an interesting point. By your count and mine, the reserves at Myola had not been built up to the requested levels when Potts set out for Kokoda on 23 August. So... what happened? Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just been reading. See: Potts pointed to the delay caused by the loss of that "at no. There is a word missing. Do you mean the loss of rations? Yes, it is prudent to limit operations to the available resources. However; Potts was obliged to defend Isurava (Williams p69) To this extent, the operation was not limited. Given the need to restrict operations, it might have been prudent to shorten the LoC toward Myola and establish a main defensive position closer, while still maintaining Isurava as a screen. That then could have been reinforced once the logistical situation firmed or have been used to delay the Japanese advance if it were attacked in the mean time. What happened though, is that Potts was obliged (ordered) to defend at Isurava. I understand that Potts moved the 2/14th forward to comply with the order to extract the 39th. But just as this was happening (with the advance companies arriving), the Japanese struck - causing Honner to remain and then drawing in the rest of the 2/14th and 2/16th piecemeal. Potts would have been damned for giving up Isurava too easily. As it was, he was damned by Blamey. The various orders Potts was given defined a course of action and took the initiative from him and there were inherent contradictions in being able to comply with the restrictions imposed upon him. While this is not a forum, I have indicated an alternative as a way of high-lighting these contradictions. To quote Moremon, he was "hamstrung" by the logistics. If not a logistical failure, then it was certainly a command failure (higher) to fail to adjust to the changed logistical situation or to maintain a belief that the logistical situation had not significantly changed and all was rosy. I then return to the point that it was not either on their own but the combination of events that held Potts back and put him on the back foot. This is my understanding of what happened. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS, If you question why Potts personally went forward earlier (as opposed to his force), then certainly, he was obliged to. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would have been a good plan. I might have also considered a reverse slope defence. On 23 August, Potts set out to recapture Kokoda, which was his intention as late as 25 August. (Anderson, p. 54) The order to retake Kokoda was not cancelled until 29 August. (p. 70) According to Honner, when the 2/14th reached reached him, it still had orders to push on to Kokoda, not to defend Isurava. He protested the order to withdraw the 39th, as he felt that one battalion could not hold Isurava. (p. 62) Added a quote by John Moremon. Hope this resolves the issue. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the para, I think it needs a little context for the uninformed reader - what was Potts doing there. Can I suggest something like the following, noting that I have plucked Potts change of role out of where it presently sits but otherwise this would sit at the front of the present para.

When the raid of 17 August occurred, two battalions of the 21st Brigade under Potts were moving forward to reinforce Maroubra Force. Rowell was initially unconcerned for any immediate impact the raid might have on the Maroubra operation since he believed adequate reserves had been accumulated at Myola. As his advance companies were approaching Myola, it was Potts that discoverd that these reserves fell far short of what was expected and the loss of these planes now took on a critical [different] dimension. Where Potts had been ordered to quickly recapture Kokoda he was now ordered to adopt a defencive role until adequate stocks could be established at Myola.

Cinderella157 (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS, you might qualify "defeated" (and withdrew or something) - again, for the sake of the uninformed reader, who might equate this as synonymous with captured. I will also say that the para more clearly exposes how logistics shaped the battle. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While we might agree to disagree on a number of points which may or may not benefit from a third opinion, there is still the matter if the number of carriers working along the track. Specifically: "On 9 October, there were 9,270 carriers working on the Track." as raised at Talk:Allied logistics in the Kokoda Track campaign#Number of carriers. As raised there, the source does not appear to support that this number was "working along the track" and other sources indicate a significantly lower number "working along the track". As previously indicated, this really needs to be resolved. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: very impressive work, IMO. Far better than my own chicken scratchings could ever have hoped to produce. Thanks for your efforts. I have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Japanese submarine RO-33 sank the 300..." --> "RO-33" probably should be in italics
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after being torpedoed by the Japanese submarine RO-33 off..." --> same as above
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bootless Inlet appears to be overlinked, as do B-18, C-39, and C-53, dysentery, scrub typhus, malaria
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "49th Battalion, a Militia unit, but...": suggest linking Militia here
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest cropping the credits off the AWM images per WP:WATERMARK
    checkY Uploaded a new version sans the watermark. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Mount Tambu fighting 4116758.jpg": probably needs a US licence
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Loading a DC-2.jpg": as above
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Transport plane drops supplies near Nauro.jpg": as above
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Kokoda Track.jpg": as above
    I'm not on Commons. I don't know how to do anything on Commons. Please don't ask for changes on Commons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:A cargo ship being unloaded at the wharf in Port Moresby.jpg": as above
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:MV Malaita torpedoed off Port Moresby 1942.jpg": as above
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Dakota takes off on supply mission.jpg": as above
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Road building beyond Moresby.jpg": as above
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Nine Mile Quarry.jpg": as above
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Men leading pack horses and mules on the Kokoda Track 4104864.jpg": as above
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Kila Kila Airfield - New Guinea.jpg": probably needs a more definitive source/link
     Done
  • slightly inconsistent terminology "25th Brigade" v. "25th Infantry Brigade"
    checkY The latter is correct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blamey ordered Morris to prevent...": full name for Morris here as it is the first mention
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Anotherclown[edit]

  • Support - article looks in very good shape to me, only a few minor suggestions / nitpicks:
    • The tools seem to be broken at the moment so I wasn't able to check these. Earwig reveals no issues with close paraphrase though [19] (no action req'd).
      Per [20] you can replace dispenser.homenet.org with its IP address 69.142.160.183. But I wasn't going to change the template, as there was some argument about whether we should use IP addresses. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Although I'm not an admin, I am a template editor, so I can make this change. It should work now, although you may need to refresh to pick up the latest version of the template. I'll put it back when dispenser.homenet.org becomes available again. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...whereas the Japanese airfield at Lae and Salamaua..." should this be airfields (plural)?
      checkY Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wording here is a bit of a mouthful "...The first Second Australian Imperial Force..." (first Second), perhaps consider rewording it to something like "The first unit of the Second Australian Imperial Force to arrive..."
      checkY That one was bothering me too. Changed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...having returned to Australia from the Middle East just four weeks before..." I wonder if some readers will know why it was in the Middle East? Could this do with a brief explanation?
      There's no article on Stepsister. If there was I would link it. I am not sure how or where I could add such an explanation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Brigadier Arnold Potts therefore decided on 24 August..." this is the 2nd time Potts is mentioned so probably should just be surname and remove the link per WP:REPEATLINK.
       Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a light copy-edit [21] but otherwise this looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cheers Hawkeye - those changes look good to me. All my points have been addressed. Anotherclown (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I really should have looked in on this review ages ago. The article is in excellent shape, and easily meets the A-class criteria. I have only one minor comment:

  • "A 32-kilometre-per-hour (20 mph) speed limit was imposed to minimise damage to the main road. This was covered with 100 millimetres (4 in) of dust that turned to mud when it rained, while the surface soon broke up under heavy military traffic." - these sentences don't flow very smoothly at present Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:13, 6 October 2017 (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 AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Manchester Cenotaph[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

Manchester Cenotaph (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

After a bit of a hiatus due to real life, I'm back with another war memorial. This one is among the higher-hanging fruit: being the main memorial in a major city and one of Lutyens' larger and more famous works, it's well covered in the sources so the article is chunkier than some of my previous nominations. I owe many thanks to KJP1 and J3Mrs for their help with the article so far and would be very grateful for any more help to take this to FAC. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this closely at GAN in July, and couldn't find anything substantive that needed fixing then. It hasn't changed since that review. I believe it meets the A-Class criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport - close to a support.

  • " in St Peter's Square in the centre of Manchester, England" - I reckon this could just be " in St Peter's Square, Manchester, England" which would read more smoothly as well.
    • I took out "in the centre of" but I don't like long lists of locations separated by commas.
  • "whose three sons died in the war" - "had died in the war" might be more natural here, given the surrounding chronology
    • Done.
  • "provide hospital beds" - this could mean literally "purchasing beds for a hospital" or "funding places in a hospital"; not sure which is meant
    • I thought the same thing myself but the sources don't specify; my guess would be the latter, but that could include providing the actual beds.
  • "In 2015, Historic England recognised Lutyens' war memorials as a national collection and all were listed, had their listing upgraded or their list entries expanded." - is there any way that this sentence can be made specific to the Manchester Cenotaph?
    • Manchester is part of the collection but wasn't one of the memorials upgraded. I could stick in "including Manchester" somewhere but there's not much I can think of beyond that.
      • "In 2015, Historic England recognised the Manchester Cenotaph as part of a national collection of Lutyens' war memorials."? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or "The memorial is protected under UK law as a grade II* listed structure, and forms part of a national collection of Lutyens' war memorials."? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Albert Square, supported by the Royal British Legion in a letter to the city council dated 11 April 1923" - is the date and fact of the letter critical here? (e.g. could this just be "Albert Square, supported by the Royal British Legion"?)
    • I suppose not. Done.
  • "Lutyens, described by Historic England as "the leading English architect of his generation" - comma after generation?
    • Done.
  • "at a cost of £6,940 (1924)." - unclear why most of the costs are just given in plain, whereas this has a date beside it.
    • I wanted to give some context to the figure, but there's a date in the next sentence so I've taken that one out.
  • "According to Tim Skelton, author of Lutyens and the Great War (2008)," - could this just be "According to the historian Tim Skelton,"? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's worth mentioning that he's written a book specifically on this subject, which makes him more qualified to comment than most. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "The city council was considering building an art gallery on the open space left after the old infirmary was demolished in Piccadilly and siting the memorial in front of it was supported by the Art Gallery Committee": Break it into two sentences.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

I checked images and licensing seems appropriate (all self-published).

FWIW I also ran my eye over the lead and could find nothing worth altering, always a good sign IMHO... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2017 (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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Wilbur Dartnell[edit]

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk)

Wilbur Dartnell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Following up with another Victoria Cross recipient. Dartnell was born in Melbourne, fought in the Boer War as a teenager and later in the Bambatha Rebellion. After working for a few years as a professional actor (on which details are surprisingly and unfortunately scant), he immigrated to South Africa and, on the outbreak of the First World War, joined the Royal Fusiliers for service in the East African Campaign. Dartnell was posthumously awarded the VC for his actions in voluntarily remaining with the wounded after his unit was ambushed and forced to retire. The article was listed as GA some months ago and I believe it also meets the A-Class criteria. Any and all comments welcome, and much appreciated. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking, Nikkimaria! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - "Fruiterer"? Is that a real word/profession? Otherwise this looks fantastic. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review, Ed! Surprisingly, it is – a "fruiterer" is defined (according to Google) as "a retailer of fruit." Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, this looks pretty good to me. Nice work. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wonder if splitting the lead would be a good idea, to turn it into two paragraphs
    • I can, but it seems to flow as is and I am concerned that splitting it would leave two rather short paragraphs.
  • "On 3 September 1915, after his company had been ambushed and although wounded, Dartnell..." --> "On 3 September 1915, despite being wounded after his company had been ambushed, Dartnell..."?
  • Tweaked – let me know what you think.
  • German East Africa appears to be overlinked
  • It is, but the first mention is linked as "Germany's neighbouring colonial possessions" (so readers would know what the article is referring to) and the second as German East Africa direct (in case readers missed the first link).
  • "The other three were John Butler, William Bloomfield and Frederick Booth": is there a ref that could be added for this?
  • Added to note – same source as that used in the text.
  • I wonder if it would make more sense to move the picture of Dartnell as a teenager to earlier in the article so that it aligns more closely to the chronology of the text?
  • I agree that that would normally be ideal. However, and on my screen at least, moving the image up to the "Early life" section would lead to some serious sandwiching of text with the infobox, which I am eager to avoid. I thought the "Legacy" section would be the most suitable alternative, as it seems ill-fitted to the First World War.

Thanks very much for the review, AustralianRupert! Much appreciated. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support Nice work. I have a few comments before I support.

  • The lead reads too lengthy, I suggest you to break it down into two to improve the readability.
    • Done.
  • Section 1; para 2; last sentence; is there any specific reason for why he changed the name? And at the end "became engaged to another woman, a Mabel Evans", I don't think it is right to have "a" before "Mabel Evans".
    • The reason for the name change is not known, unfortunately. As for the "a", it is a common technique used for persons about whom little is known.
  • list of eager names; to keep it more good looking, I suggest "interested" instead "eager"
    • Done.
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the review, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
GTG. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:00, 21 September 2017 (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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Raymond Leane[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Raymond Leane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Raymond Leane rose from the rank of captain to command the 12th Australian Brigade during WWI, fighting first at Gallipoli and then in France and Belgium. He was considered by the Official War Historian, Charles Bean, to be the "foremost fighting leader" in the Australian Imperial Force. Strong-minded, he notably disobeyed superior orders on several occasions, but was forgiven such breaches of discipline essentially because he knew what he was doing. After the war he served as Commissioner of the South Australia Police from 1920 to 1944, introducing many reforms, and was knighted after his retirement. This article recently went through GAN, and I'm keen to see where it can be improved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I did a bit of work in 2013 on this article to add references etc, but I don't think I'm too involved to comment here as it has been improved a hundred fold since then by PM. Anyway, I have the following suggestions/observations (nice work, by the way, PM): AustralianRupert (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • commanding officer is overlinked, as is 3rd Brigade (Australia) and Anzac Day
  • in the Gallipoli campaign section, maybe clarify that after the Gaba Tepe raid, Leane rejoined the rest of the 11th Battalion on the main defensive line?
  • "raised from a cadre drawn from the 16th Battalion" perhaps adjust slightly: "raised in Egypt from a cadre drawn from the 16th Battalion along with reinforcements from Australia"?
  • "8 August, "the black day of the German Army", during" --> I wonder if the quote should be attributed to Ludendorff
  • slight repetition: "achievement of the third "exploitation" phase of the attack would not be achieved by patrols" (achievement and achieved, perhaps reword?)
  • "File:SLSA B-18634 Ex-Police Commissioner W. H. Raymond and current Police Commissioner R. L. Leane circa 1920.jpg": might look more visually appealing with the border cropped off
  • G'day, PM, pretty sure its just a cache issue. I've had it happen a few times with images. If you revert to the second version, I'm pretty sure it will come right eventually. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I just purged my cache and it now appears without the border. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the References, slightly inconsistent format: "(5 ed.)" (for several iterations of Bean) v. "(3rd ed.)" for instance for Inglis and Gill

Image review

  • File:PozièresWindmillsite.jpg: what is the copyright status of the memorial? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this article for GA, and I feel that it meets our A class standard. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support As always nice work by PM. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:51, 19 September 2017 (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 Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A drawn-out conflict that involved Byzantium, Venice, the Ottomans, and was part of a wider regional struggle that saw the rise of the Ottomans to renewed power following the Battle of Ankara. The siege of Thessalonica revealed the limitations of Venice's maritime power when pitted against a strong land empire, and heralded the fall of Constantinople itself a generation later. The article was (re)written from scratch a few months ago, and recently passed GA. I have used most of the related sources available, a few others (which are either complementary, or already referenced by the sources I used) are listed as further reading. I am confident that the article is comprehensive, and would like to submit it for FA eventually. Constantine ✍ 11:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

support auntieruth55

reviewed for grammar etc I've made some minor (very!) modifications in verb tense, etc. here. auntieruth (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

source review

  • sources checked via Earwig's copy vio detector. report is here. In addition, bibliography is good, modern sources, translations, etc. also addition of "additional reading" will help readers identify where to go and what to start with. auntieruth (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009: Support (disclaimer - I reviewed at GA). Hchc2009 (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Even a brief overview turned up a number of instances of run-on and oddly formed sentences. I think a throughout GR run-through is desirable. I have not had time to catalog these, although I may in the future.
  • The lede is too long. There's a significant amount of information that could be further reduced or even just left out. Is this something you'd be comfortable letting me take a shot at?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: Go ahead, thank you very much for offering it. If there you inadvertently introduce some error or remove something vital, I can always fix that. Constantine ✍ 19:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok take a look and let me know what you think. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Maury Markowitz, sorry for the delay. Your edits look fine, I've only made some minor modifications, and re-introduced, in shortened form, the Venetians' attempts to seek allies. Constantine ✍ 12:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "In March, Venice formally declared war on the Ottomans" It would be helpful to explain earlier that the Venetians did not declare war earlier, perhaps in the sentence about the aim to block the Dardanelles.
    • Hmm, sending a task force to strong-arm someone during negotiations is not tantamount to declaration of war; it is simply an earlier form of gunboat diplomacy. Constantine ✍ 12:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is Ottoman raids and Venetian retaliation sounds like a war, so it would be helpful to clarify that the powers were not formally in a state of war at that stage. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "laid waste to the remaining Byzantine territories. Chrysopolis was captured by storm and largely destroyed.[4] Thessalonica too submitted" But you said in the previous paragraph that Chrysopolis and Thessalonica had surrendered several years earlier. I know you said that they were allowed almost complete autonomy, but it is still puzzling to see them described as Byzantine territories.
  • "the disastrous Battle of Ankara against Tamerlane in 1402" It would be helpful to spell out that it was an Ottoman defeat.
  • "the former city's local aristocracy" Why "former city"? Had it lost its status?
    • "Former city" refers to Thessalonica, i.e. the first of the of aforementioned cities of Thessalonica and Constantinople; rephrased for clarity. Constantine ✍ 12:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referring to Thessalonica, you say "the autonomous regime of Manuel II in 1382–1387" As above, I thought you said that it was the Ottomans who conquered the city but allowed it autonomy.
    • Manuel too had led an autonomous regime in the city. Rephrased a bit to make it clearer. Constantine ✍ 12:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While the Ottomans blockaded and attacked Thessalonica from land, trying to starve it into surrender" and "by October 1424 the situation in Thessalonica was so dire" Is no further detail available? My impression so far is that this seems to be a general account of the wars with passing mentions of the siege, rather than an article about the siege.
    • There is no account that deals with the siege proper on a year-by-year basis. These events are all part of the same conflict, of which the siege is the centrepiece. A title like "Ottoman–Venetian conflict over Thessalonica" might be more accurate, but in the end it is the same. Constantine ✍ 12:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Venetians found Ierissos abandoned by its garrison" Presumably its Ottoman garrison?
  • "five other forts" other than what? You have not mentioned any other forts.
  • You said that the garrison abandoned the town. If it was a fort at the town, you should say so. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In response, Michiel occupied both the fort of Kassandreia, which he refortified and strengthened by the construction of two smaller forts in the area." The grammar has gone wrong here. "both" requires x and y.
    • Sorry, yes. A leftover from a previous phrasing. Removed. Constantine ✍ 12:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the same time, according to the Codex Morosini, a pretender claiming to be Mustafa Çelebid[›] arrived in Thessalonica, and gathered a growing following of Turks who considered him to be the true son of Sultan Bayezid. Pseudo-Mustafa launched raids against Murad's forces from the city" Presumably Michiel supported him, but this should be clarified. Also, which Turks supported the pretender - ones living in Thessalonica or ones who came to him from Ottoman territory?
    • There were no Turks living in Thessalonica during the siege. Where is that suggested? Constantine ✍ 12:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow, but as I said above, there seems to me too much background and not enough details of the siege. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Dudley Miles, and thanks for taking the time to review! I have tried to answer/fix the points you have raised so far, and am awaiting the remainder. On your last comment, the background is necessary to show the motivations of the various parties in this conflict, and as I wrote above, the article is intended to portray the entire conflict over Thessalonica, which was to a large degree not carried out exclusively in or near the city itself. Constantine ✍ 12:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be helpful to explain in the lead that there is no year by year account of the siege so that readers expect an account of the context rather than details of events in the city. (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, a discussion on sources is not really warranted for the lede. I have rephrased it however to clarify that the article describes a) the blockade and occasional attacks on Thessalonica, and b) the wider conflict that featured raids and counter-raids. Constantine ✍ 08:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adrianople. Various sources say Murad had renamed the city Edirne.
    • "Edirne" is simply the Turkish name for the city. In English, as in most Western languages, in any context up to the early 20th century, "Adrianople" is still the common form. Only in an exclusively Ottoman/Islamic context would "Edirne" be used. Constantine ✍ 08:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finished review - looks good. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am neutral as the nominator has not replied to my comments of 21 August. Dudley Miles (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the delay Dudley Miles, been rather busy elsewhere. I hope I have addressed the final concerns. Any more suggestions/comments, even if above and beyond ACR requirements, are welcome, however. Constantine ✍ 08:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - nice work. One thought, more to come (hopefully!).
    • "Although the Emperors Manuel II and John VIII, along with the King of Poland Władysław II Jagiełło, tried to effect a reconciliation between Venice and Sigismund, it was only in 1425, when Murad II, freed from threats to his Anatolian possessions, went to the counter-offensive, that Venice itself recognised the necessity of an alliance with Sigismund." Can this sentence be split in two? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Ed! Good point, split has been done. Any more comments? Constantine ✍ 08:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know if I'll have time to fully circle back on this—but with all the copyediting I did plus subsequent changes, I feel comfortable supporting this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review had a look through the image licensing and it all looks ok to me, mostly reproductions of PD-100 2D artwork or free. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:46, 29 August 2017 (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 Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

SMS Wittelsbach[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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

Toolbox

Another one of my revamped articles - this passed GA way back in 2011 and has since been overhauled with the usual Hildebrand et. al. treatment. Thanks to all who take the time to read the article. Parsecboy (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support after a few copyedits. I have to wonder if the 1903 peacetime exercises would be easier to read as bullet points. (I know that hasn't really been done before with battleship articles, and you may choose to disregard this.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, your edits look good to me. I don't know how much I like bullet points inserted into prose, though. Parsecboy (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support with one image concern:

  • File:SMS Wittelsbach Bain picture.jpg. The copyright tag claims it was a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties; that doesn't seem to be backed up by the Library of Congress entry it comes from. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good catch, I didn't look all that closely at it since it's a Bain photo - updated with the proper tags. Parsecboy (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

support

  • minor caveat: "the VIII Torpedo-boat Flotilla" Is Flotilla the name of the ship, of a flotilla? auntieruth (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The latter - does adding "the vessels of the VIII Torpedo-boat Flotilla..." make that clearer without being too verbose? Parsecboy (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2017 (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 Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Roger B. Chaffee[edit]

Nominator(s): Kees08 (talk)

Roger B. Chaffee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the article recently passed for GA and received a copy edit from GOCE. Roger Chaffee was an American astronaut who died well before his time to shine. He had a lot of promise as an astronaut, and tragically Apollo 1 took that away. Anyways, I read his biography and incorporated all relevant material from it, as well as relevant material from the Apollo 1 AIB. Kees08 (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have some suggestions:

  • Make "Boy Scouts", "Education" and "Family" sub-headings, and remove "Purdue"
    • Agreed,  Done
  • Consolidate the last two sentences in "Purdue" into the last paragraph.
    • Funny, I did this when I did your previous suggestion. So,  Done
  • Under "family", per WP:BLP, I don't think we should have the birth dates of his children, as they are living and non-notable.
    • I think keeping the year is fine per WP:BLP, which I did, if you disagree let me know, otherwise  Done
  • Link Greenville, Michigan, Ordnance Corps (United States Army), Annapolis, Maryland, Dean's list, West Lafayette, Indiana, Oklahoma City, NASA Astronaut Group 3, NASA, Houston, Texas, Reno, Nevada, Gemini 3
    • NASA astronaut group 3 was already in there, and I did not see a good place to put the ordnance corps link. Otherwise,  Done Kees08 (Talk)
  • The article uses some dmy dates
    • More than happy to admit I am blind, but I only see mdy. Did I miss it? Kees08 (Talk)
  • Anything about his wife? Did she have a job or anything before they were married?
    • Homemaker, added it to the article  Done
  • Mention that Lake Champlain was an aircraft carrier
    •  Done
  • Why are some squadrons links by their name and some by the abbreviated form (eg VAP-62)?
    • Ignorance. I changed VAP-62 to be the squadron and did not see any others, let me know if I missed one.  Done
  • The A3D linked is twice
    •  Fixed
  • "flattop or aircraft carrier" The reader may not know the former is slang for the latter; if they do, it is redundant; so delete "flattop or"
    •  Done (as an aside, I probably put that there because I did not realize at the time they were the same thing)
  • Any idea when he was promoted to Lt (jg) or Lt?
    • Looked really hard for this, did not see in his biography, did not find via google, and could not find by looking through old newspapers.
  • "During his Navy service he logged" should be "During Chaffee's Navy service he logged" Last name on first mention in a paragraph.
    •  Done
  • "1800 hours of flying time" should be "1,800 hours of flying time"
    •  Fixed
  • Comma after Fairborn, Ohio
    •  Fixed
  • "where he found a message" should be "when" unless he found the message on the hunting trip
    •  Done
  • Training: you might want to say why training in geology was considered important rather than, oh I dunno, learning to pilot a spacecraft
    •  Done - put a little excerpt on the rationale in the article
  • Why do we describe Wally Schirra as a "Mercury veteran" but not Gus Grissom?
    •  Done
  • Suggest removing the "Accident" heading and making "Aftermath" a major heading
    •  Done
  • The article should make it clear that Chaffee's death was asphyxiation by poisonous gases.
    • Added details of him losing consciousness and of his death Kees08 (Talk)
  • You say that "Grissom, White, and Chaffee got permission to name their flight Apollo 1" but "Shortly after the AS-204 fire in 1967, NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Spaceflight Dr. George Mueller announced the mission would be officially designated as Apollo 1." Which was it?
    • I am going to summarize all the sources that say how it got named, and I will come up with a summary that reflects that. NASA history office says that "The AS-204 mission was redesignated Apollo I in honor of the crew." The Smithsonian says 'After the disaster, the mission was officially designated Apollo 1.' Another NASA page says 'In the spring of 1967, NASA's Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, Dr. George E. Mueller, announced that the mission originally scheduled for Grissom, White and Chaffee would be known as Apollo 1.' Lastly, Astronautix says 'The designation AS-204 was used by NASA for the flight at the time; the designation Apollo 1 was applied retroactively at the request of Grissom's widow.' That all seems pretty cut and dried to me; I removed the incorrect statement and added an additional citation to the correct statement. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Use a quote template for the quote rather than italics
    •  Done
  • I would like the article to mention the improvements made to the spacecraft as a result of the fire, and the fact that the mission was flown as Apollo 7 by Schirra's crew in 1968.
  • Delete the "see also section"
    •  Done

Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, did not see this til just now, I will start working through them. Thanks for the feedback! Kees08 (Talk) 06:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Well that took a little longer than it should have to address all the comments, but I just got the last one. Take another read through the article if you would like and let me know if there is anything else you would like me to address. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 03:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 and AustralianRupert: Seeing if I can get any interest on reviewing, let me know if you guys are interested and have any additional comments! Kees08 (Talk) 02:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, thank you for your efforts. I took a quick look and have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • United States Navy is overlinked in the lead, I'd suggest possibly replacing the second one with a link to Officer (armed forces)
     Done Thanks, missed that one. Kees08 (Talk)
  • I'm not sure about the level of detail included in the Boy Scout section, to be honest. Is it really necessary to list every badge he earnt?
     Done That's fair, I think I was just excited I found every badge he had earned. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "The two-week flight was not...": does this relate to the first sentence in the paragraph? It seems a bit out of place, or I'm missing something?
     Done Hopefully that makes it more clear. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "opportunity to work on his master's degree", is this the same master's as mentioned in the earlier section?
     Done I had to double check the source, but yes it is the same. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "he experienced myocardial hypoxia, which gave him cardiac arrest and resulted in cerebral hypoxia..." --> "he experienced myocardial hypoxia, which sent him into cardiac arrest and resulted in cerebral hypoxia"?
     Done - Agreed Kees08 (Talk)
  • inconsistent spelling: "Sheryl" v. "Cheryl"
     Fixed Nice catch! I had misread the book, I corrected it. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "and was commissioned as an ensign in the U.S. Navy" --> "and was commissioned as an ensign" (the second mention of Navy is redundant)
     Done Kees08 (Talk)
  • "saw this as too demanding of perfection..." --> "saw this as too demanding"?
     Done Kees08 (Talk)
  • "Chaffee was awarded the Air Medal": do we know what he received this for specifically?
  • "After this, Chaffee spent time doing aircraft carrier flight training" --> "After this, Chaffee undertook aircraft carrier flight training..."?
     Done Kees08 (Talk)
  • "kilometres" --> "kilometers" (US spelling)
     Done Kees08 (Talk)
  • I think the article could possibly benefit from a copy editor's eye, so I wonder if you might consider listing it at the WP:GOCE
    I actually had them go through it once before (March 28, 2017), but I can have them give it another go around. I can try to tidy up the wording myself as well, I can be a semi-competent copy-editor when I take my time on it. Kees08 (Talk)
  • I will try to come back later and have another look (sorry it's late here)
    @AustralianRupert: I have addressed your first round of comments, feel free to hit me with round two whenever you get a chance. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 06:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Roger Chaffee Navy Portrait.jpg": suggest adding some sort of indicative date to the description page (even if it is a range);
    Based on his sleeve insignia, and the fact it appears to be for a lieutenant in the Navy, it had to have been prior to February 1, 1966. I am not familiar enough with the Navy to get any closer to that. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "File:Apollo1-Crew 01.jpg": source links on the description page appear to be dead;
    Fixed Kees08 (Talk)
  • "File:Apollo 1 fire.jpg": same as above
    Fixed Kees08 (Talk)
  • [23]: appears to be a dead link
    Fixed Kees08 (Talk)
  • "when he found a message from NASA in...": move the NASA link from here to the first mention of the term
    Prior to that, it was NASA astronauts which is used as an adjective for astronauts. I would rather have it where it is, do you have strong feelings one way or the other? I could be wrong :) Kees08 (Talk)
    G'day, I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning here, to be honest, but it is a minor point for me, so I've added my support. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to defer to your experience here, since I am probably wrong. Kees08 (Talk)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "United States Navy), was an American naval officer": repetition.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dank: Thanks for the review. Would it be proper to start the article 'Lieutenant Commander Roger Chaffee was an...'? I am not a big fan of the parenthesis at the beginning. Kees08 (Talk) 01:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure. - Dank (push to talk) 01:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    G'day, not sure if there is anything written down, but by convention I think within Milhist bios we tend to only include rank at the start of the article for those who reached star rank. I'm not really fussed either way, but Ian could probably confirm or deny this: @Ian Rose: thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Rupert is right that the practice has tended to be only using rank if 1-star or above. That said, I would not be putting the rank in parentheses after the name either. It looks odd there, it has no particular bearing on his notability, and it's already specified in the infobox (complete with insignia, which I think is overdoing it, but seems common in US military bios). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ian Rose: I have a potentially stupid question...he has one star on his sleeve, but that is not what you mean when you say 1-star and above right? You mean like a 1-star general for example? Kees08 (Talk) 04:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, 1-star general or above -- and don't worry, I don't believe there are any stupid questions on WP... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In the US Navy it is usually called "flag rank" because they have a flag that they fly from their flagship. I've removed it, but added his promotion in the lead. Hope that works. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's the best solution all round. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me, too. Thanks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment -- just re-reading the lead (and the relevant part of the main body), we should avoid seasonal references such as "fall of 1954" wherever possible; can we zero in on a particular month from the sources? At the very least we should use "autumn" for our non-American readers... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: - the article seems to be about ready for promotion, though I'd like to see Ian's comment here addressed first. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been very busy IRL, but plan to work on this as soon as I can. Kees08 (Talk) 05:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose and Parsecboy: I have made the change suggested above. The source provided in the text only seems to use "fall of 1954", so I couldn't find an exact month. I have simply changed this to "autumn" per Ian's suggestion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tks mate -- I haven't looked closely enough at the article overall to support but no objections to promotion based on the tweaks per my comments above, and other reviewers' support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2017 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

German destroyer Z39[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

German destroyer Z39 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it passed GAN a while back, and I believe it meets the standards for A class. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parsecboy's Comments[edit]
  • Have you checked Whitley to see if anything can be added to the article? I don't have the book on hand, but Sturmvogel's articles on German destroyers tend to rely more on Whitley than Koop & Schmolke. I also ought to have a look at Hildebrand to see what, if anything, they can add
    • Had a look at Rohwer, and he offers more details on the minelaying operations in February - April 1944 on pages 306, 311, and 318. Page 337 mentions that the bombers that hit the ship on 23 June were from the Soviet Baltic Fleet Air Force, page 344 mentions the attack on 24 July (actually the night of 23-24 July) was from RAF Bomber Command. Page 410 mentions 2 more destroyers, another torpedo boat, and a couple of other warships also took part in the evacuation to Copenhagen. Page 414 has more details on the 7 May evacuation. This material needs to be incorporated. I'll check Hildebrand later.
      @Parsecboy: Which book is this? Having checked both books (although admittedly only from a snippet view online), I can't seems to find which book. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The book with the page numbers I referenced? That's Rohwer - I believe the book in question is in the further reading section. Parsecboy (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch WP:ENGVAR - convert templates produce UK spellings but "draft"
    • I think since the article started using American spellings, it ought to be standardized that way per WP:RETAIN.
  • Similarly, I see the vessel referred to as "she" and "it" - per WP:SHE4SHIPS, pick one variant and standardize the article
  • A number of things in the infobox are omitted from the description paragraph, including engines, boilers, HP, the 15cm guns
  • Why did she have the Greek coat of arms painted on the turret?
    This one puzzles me, I cannot think of a good reason it does. I'm searching for any reason available, but have not found one yet.
  • One generally refers to them simple as "the Skagerrak" and "the Kattegat", much like one typically just says "the Danube", not "the Danube River"
  • Introduce ships by including their type - ex: what is Z28? Schlesien?
  • Lots of comma overuse
  • I'd link simply to the Oder, not redlink Oder estuary. Parsecboy (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Design section is a bit of a mess - the range figure is repeated, but vastly different figures are given, and neither matches the infobox. I'd recommend splitting the paragraph up and sorting the material. What I generally do is a paragraph on general characteristics, one on the propulsion system, and one on the armament, armor, and radar stuff. Parsecboy (talk)
    checkY
  • Another thing - check the conversion templates - in the infobox, 15cm is correctly given as 5.9in, but in the sentence, it's converted as 6in. Parsecboy (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY

Image is suitably licensed. Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Parsecboy: any further comments? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of an aside, but it's not advised to strike reviewers' comments yourself - let them do that. Parsecboy (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Parsecboy and Nick-D:: I have not been able to find a place to read the book online, so I ordered the book online; it should arrive within two days, so I'll wait till then. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds good to me - if you're planning on doing many articles on WWII ships, it's a fairly irreplaceable resource. Parsecboy (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      @Parsecboy and Nick-D: I have added in all the details I could find from the book; has this answered your questions? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D's Comments[edit]

This article is in good shape, but needs some more work for A-class status:

  • The lead is a bit short, and needlessly imprecise
    • This comment still stands - the lead should be about two paras, and provide specifics about the ship's career. Please don't strike other editors' comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • This comment still remains, and I think that it's become more relevant with the impressive expansion of the article. The lead should provide some specifics of the ship's career, not general statements as is the case at present. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Nick-D: I have expanded the lead, adding several specifics; is there anything else? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 'Design and armament' section, it would be helpful to note if the ship had the same design as the rest of her class, or any modifications

*:I know that she was modified at one point, I just cannot find exact details on what was modified; most likely her 15 cm guns, as her class, the Type 1936A (Mob), is noted as having none of these in general, by one of the sources. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She had the Greek coat of arms on either side of her 15-centimetre (6 in) twin turret" - why was this painted on?
    Again, I have little to no idea. I'm searching for a source, but have not found it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did it take so long to complete the ship?
    I don't know; this seems to indicate that Z39's building time was typical for her class.
    The piece I've found about her being modified would certainly explain the long time for her being fully operational, if her plans were changed mid-building. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she began patrolling the Skagerrak, and the Kattegat" - did she really 'patrol'? I believe that aircraft and submarines were used for this purpose, with destroyers being used as escorts and strike ships
    Source isn't super specific; I'll look into it.
    I've changed it to "mine-laying operations" as this is more correct. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 23 June of the same year, she was damaged by bombs while moored off of Paldiski" - which force dropped the bombs?
    This isn't mentioned, but it is very easy to assume British; will look into finding a ref for this though. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that this took place in Estonia, the attackers were almost certainly Soviet Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comments above, Nick - Rohwer confirms it was a Soviet attack. Parsecboy (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While at port in Kiel, on 24 July, she was hit by a bomb" - as above. Also, did her crew suffer any casualties in these attacks?
    Not mentioned, will look into. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Still not addressed: this would have been a raid by the western Allies. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto as above - this was a Bomber Command raid. Parsecboy (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was the ship sent to Kiel for repairs for bomb damage, only to be sent elsewhere after being bombed again?
    Not mentioned, but presumably higher-priority ships had been damaged in this bombing raid, so she was sent to a lesser repair station. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the severity of damage the reason it took so long to repair the ship, or was this due to other causes? (eg, repairing destroyers being a low priority given Germany's disastrous situation)
    Not mentioned, but likely low priority. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Why did the ship end up with the US Navy? Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm very pleased to support this article's promotion. Great work with it Iazyges Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert's Comments[edit]

Support: G'day, nice work. I'm strictly land-based myself, but I had a look anyway. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • the lead could probably be expanded to very briefly summarise the construction, launching dates etc. (A single sentence probably would be sufficient, e.g. "Laid down in August 1940, Z39 was completed three years later. She subsequently spent the rest of the war escorting transports in the Baltic...etc"
    checkY
  • in the lead, remove the link and name "Nazi Navy": Kriegsmarine is already linked and is probably sufficient as a term by itself (i.e. I don't think Nazi Navy is a proper noun)
    checkY
  • suggest turning the Design and armament section into two paragraphs for readability. I'd suggest probably splitting it after "...15-centimetre (6 in) twin turrent.[5]"
    checkY
  • watch out for overlink, the duplicate link checker tool identifies the following: 2 cm Flak 30/38, 3.7cm SK C/30, Kiel,
     Done
  • in the infobox, in the fate field, should it also mention the transfer to France?
    checkY I've made a "career" piece for all three of her owners.
  • inconsistent: "standard displacement of 2,600 tonnes (2,600 long tons; 2,900 short tons), and 3,597 tonnes (3,540 long tons; 3,965 short tons) at full load" (body of the article) v "Displacement: 2,519 long tons (2,559 t) (standard); 3,691 long tons (3,750 t) deep load" (infobox)
    checkY. The reason for the many inconsistencies comes from my originally using a source that gave an average for the class, before switching to a source that gave specific data. The old data got left behind in the infobox somehow. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to 2 sets of Wagner geared..." --> "to two sets of Wagner geared.."
    checkY
  • inconsistent: "top speed of 38.5 knots (71.3 km/h; 44.3 mph)" (body of the article) v. "Speed: 36 knots (67 km/h; 41 mph)" (infobox)
    checkY
  • inconsistent: "She had a range of 2,239 nautical miles (4,147 km; 2,577 mi)..." (body of article) v. "2,950 nmi (5,460 km; 3,390 mi)"
    checkY
  • "alongside German destroyers Z35, Z28, and Z35" (Z35 is mentioned twice here)
    checkY Was meant to be 25, not 35.
  • "bring her up to 'Barbara standards...": the MOS prefers double quote marks. Also, is there a link that can be used to explain what "Barbara" refers to?
    checkY. I have not found one in-wiki, but this website says it was her having AA guns added. I'm not sure if it would be considered a reliable enough source for an A-class however. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the References, some works have publishing locations and some don't, e.g. compare Bauer with Both
    checkY
  • @AustralianRupert: I believe I have addressed all of your comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:25, 30 July 2017 (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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Philip Baxter[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Philip Baxter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Together with Mark Oliphant and Ernest Titterton, he is one of the three "Nuclear Knights" Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, this looks quite good to me. I made a couple of minor adjustments, and having the following suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "File:Baxter Oliphant (1954).jpg": needs a PD-US tag also
  • From this [25], there appears to be one dead link (currently used as Note 32)
    checkY Repaired link rot. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kees08

  • Images
    • For Philip's photo, can you recrop the source photo to be the same resolution as the infobox? It shows up really blurry as-is, which seems unnecessary.
      No, but another image has become available, so I have used that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on commenting more, just starting so hopefully it will motivate myself to finish

Kees08 (Talk) 19:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments – only a couple of minor comments on an otherwise comprehensive and well written article:

  • When used on its own, "university" should be decapitalised.
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth noting in the lead the year Baxter was appointed to UNSW as professor of chemical engineering.
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it known when the family moved to Hereford?
    No. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so ICI was eager to create new products using it that it could sell" – worth clarifying first "it" (I assume chlorine?).
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the seven dwarves, that was" – that –> which
     Done
  • Both Second World War and World War II are used in the article – worth picking just the one for consistency.
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first students enrolled in the new course in 1949" – I'm a little confused as to how Baxter made departmental and structural changes before he had even arrived.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section heading "Sydney Opera House Trust" is perhaps not the most direct or accurate, as the Sydney Opera House Trust itself comprises only one of the three paragraphs in the section. Perhaps something along the lines of "Sydney Opera House Trust, the Arts and legacy" or similar?
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comments have been addressed, so I'm happy to support. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport - a great read. No dabs, copyvios or duplicate links. The only queries I have are that I'm getting an error code on the links for fn 15 and 19–21. When I click on the latter three it tells me the link is insecure. Is there something that can be done about that? Otherwise, just image licensing stuff. File:Sir Philip Baxter.jpg, File:Yagodin, Baxter and Street.jpg, and File:Baxter Oliphant (1954).jpg need a US licence, or alternatively PD-AustralianGov, File:Nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights under construction.jpg and File:Nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights.jpg don't seem to have an appropriate licence given the source.

  • Switched to the new {{PD-AustraliaGov}} licence. Fn 15 works okay for me, but it looks like I added a security exception for the National Archives site, which you can do too. I have asked them to update their certificate. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2017 (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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Alfred Shout[edit]

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk)

Alfred Shout (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

It has been some time since my last ACR, but I believe this one meets the criteria. Shout was a New Zealand-born soldier and Australian Victoria Cross recipient of the First World War. Commissioned into the AIF not long after its formation, Shout took part in the Gallipoli landings on 25 April 1915, was awarded the Military Cross for his "conspicuous courage and ability" two days later, and soon after Mentioned in Despatches. His VC was posthumously awarded for his actions at Lone Pine in August 1915 – after Ottoman forces had recaptured a section of trench, Shout twice led small parties of men to clear them out. He was mortally wounded when a bomb he was throwing prematurely exploded. Shout was the most highly decorated man in the AIF at Gallipoli, and his VC sold for a world record auction price in 2006. The article has had a long gestation period, but passed as GA late last year and, after some recent copy-editing, I think it right for an ACR. Any and all comments welcome, and greatly appreciated. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, welcome back to ACR! I have a few minor points, but otherwise I think this one is up to snuff: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "formulated an invasion plan of the Gallipoli Peninsula" --> "formulated a plan to invade the Gallipoli Peninsula"?
  • "Led by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Battalions..." (probably could link the 3rd and 4th Battalions here)
  • inconsistent date format, compare "2017-07-31" v "29 June 2013"
  • "File:C01998.jpg": the source link doesn't appear to be working for me: [26]
  • "File:P11610.002.jpg": same as above: [27]
  • "File:P05402.001.jpg": same as above: [28]
  • "File:P02058.001.jpg": same as above: [29]
  • "File:Alfred John Shout at Quinns Post.jpg": same as above: [30]
  • "also active in the Militia..." (in the lead you use the term Militia, but do not use it again, probably best to be consistent)
  • in the Bibliography, are there OCLC numbers that could be added for the two Bean works, and the Wigmore source?
  • in the Bibliograph, the location presentation is slightly inconsistent, compare: "Canberra, Australia" v. "Prahran, Victoria, Australia"
Thanks for the review, AustralianRupert, and for picking up on the above – most appreciated! I have actioned all of your points (see my edits) with the exception of the Quinns Post image. As you have probably noticed, the AWM launched a new website a few weeks ago, during which the linking ID for all images seems to have changed. I was able to connect the new source link for all of the other photographs, but for some reason the Quinns Post image is yet to be transferred over to the new site (though is still available on the old [31]). Will wait a few days to see if the image is transferred over, but if not I'll replace the AWM template with an archival link. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The AWM has now transferred the Quinn's Post image over to the new site, so I have updated the link accordingly. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Looks good to me.

  • Check out the Australian Military Forces article. You'll see that your use of CMF is incorrect in the first two sections. You should say AMF, not CMF.
Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the review, Hawkeye7! Regarding the CMF v. AMF issue, the table at Australian Military Forces states that the collective Australian Army (Regular and Reserves) were not known as the AMF until 1916, after Shout's death. Similarly, Jeffrey Grey's The Australian Army (South Melbourne: Oxford, 2001), p. 26 notes that the part-time volunteer force was known as the CMF from at least 1909. However, Peacemaker67 has kindly tweaked all mentions to "Citizens' Forces", which I think works fine. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC): I'll work through this over the next day or so.[reply]

  • I've switched CMF to Citizens' Forces, which I believe was the name at the time.
Many thanks. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there information about what medals he received for his South African service with what clasps?
Have just worked this in. I also added mention of Shout's campaign medals from the First World War, though admittedly in a note as I saw no smooth way of incorporating them into the Legacy section. Thanks very much for the review! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "the only one awarded to members of the AIF", as the sentence reads a bit oddly at present
Done.
  • the links for fn 5 and 51 come up with a 404 error, and I get some sort of security-related error when I click on the link in fn 4.
Have removed fn 5 as it wasn't really needed, and updated fn 51 (now 50). Not sure what the issue was with 4, but I have updated the URL and it seems to be working fine now.
  • image-wise, the infobox pic doesn't need a PD-URAA, as I recently discovered the PD-AustraliaGov one covers worldwide. Also File:P02058.001.jpg should probably be PD-AustraliaGov and drop the US licence tag, same for File:C01998.jpg, File:P11610.002.jpg and File:P05402.001.jpg. This is because PD-URAA requires a date of publication, which we don't have for these pics.
Done.

Otherwise, that's me done. Great job, and welcome back to ACR! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Peacemaker67! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2017 (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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Cho Ki-chon[edit]

Nominator(s): Finnusertop (talk)

Cho Ki-chon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

When Cho Ki-chon – a Soviet propaganda officer of Korean descent – entered his home country with the Red Army during the last days of WWII, he had a mission. The Soviets needed to groom Kim Il-sung for leadership of North Korea, but the man seriously lacked appeal. The Soviets figured out that with the help of Cho, they could kill two birds with one stone: write brilliant propaganda praising Kim as the hero of Koreans but do so in the socialist realist genre. Thus was born Mt. Paektu, an epic poem chronicling the largely made-up guerilla activities of Kim Il-sung to serve as the basis of his cult of personality. A few years later, Kim led Koreans to war again and Cho continued to write propaganda poems with names like "Aircraft Hunters" and "Mungyong Pass". Cho died in a United Nations Force bombing raid. Ironically, his death in "The Forgotten War" was what immortalized his legacy; he died just before Kim Il-sung began his sweeping purges of the intelligentsia in the mid-1950s.

The article is a GA and DYK. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • "may have spared him his reputation" spared from what negative assessment?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi: would you be happy with the wording I added in this edit:

"may have spared him his reputation from that loss of official recognition. With the exception of a period in the 1970s when Cho's name was barely mentioned in official publications, his legacy has benefited from continued popularity in North Korea."

? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi: What about you? Are you happy with the article after the improvements below (and those done by you; thank you for that)? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorta stepping away from doing any content review at the moment. I hope things go well for you A-class review... sorry...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DarjeelingTea[edit]

Conditional Support - This is an absolutely fascinating article by Finnusertop. Having just, this last summer, been promoted to GA status there's not a lot that I can find that needs improvement but I have listed some items below. I've rated this "conditional support" on correction of these items.

  • Alt tags for images are all present, captions are sensible and supported by text, images all have correct licensing
  • No DAB issues or dead external links
  • Earwig shows copyvio unlikely
  • Everything is cited and to RS
  • LEDE complies with WP:LEDE for length
  • "Other poems by hum include" ... is that supposed to be "him"?
  • about the sufferings of Koreans ... I believe "suffering" should be singular
  • Yi Chang-ju of the North Research Institution, ... there should not be a comma after "institution"
  • " According to Gabroussenko," ... while this form is fine for the literature review of a thesis, I don't think in an encyclopedia we can just say "according to [surname]" without giving the given name on the first instance of use
  • By that time, he had much experience of Soviet literature and literature administration. (I think the preposition used here should be "with" instead of "of" - and a word like "substantial" might by stylistically preferable to "much"?)
  • Several times we refer to United Nations bombing raids and, while technically that's correct, I don't see this specific verbiage used often in lieu of naming a specific nationality's air force.
  • Cho died on 31 July 1951 in his office room - couldn't we just say in his office ... or did he also live there?

DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the great suggestions, DarjeelingTea. I've made all changes in this edit.
Notice that I didn't spell out Gabroussenko's first name where you point out it's missing. I've already introduced her with her full name when I first invoke her in the section #Before emigrating from the Soviet Union:

"Tatiana Gabroussenko thinks it is probable that"

as well as in the first footnote

"According to Tatiana Gabroussenko, Cho's place of birth"

. If you think it would be wise to spell it out once more, I can do that of course. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, I missed it! That all looks good to me in that case. DarjeelingTea (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the Milhist coords, this review is by a confirmed sock who has been blocked indefinitely. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Ack, seen, unfortunate situation. Question is, do we simply ignore the review (and require three more for promotion), or do we let it stand? From what I can see, the comments seem reasonable, and have been addressed, so I don't think the nominator should be penalised. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think Finnusertop has addressed them in good faith, but I just wanted to point it out for those that don't run the script that shows blocked users. It is only a conditional support, so I'd ordinarily want to see a couple of strong supports (or three supports) to get this one over the line. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for letting us know. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, nicely done, IMO, although I can honestly say this isn't a topic I know anything about. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Tatiana Gabroussenko thinks it is...". Suggest on first mention clarifying who Gabroussenko is. For instance, "Biographer Tatiana Gabroussenko", or "Author Tatiana Gabroussenko..."
    •  Done
  • "literary circles of the time were divided based on divisions" --> "literary circles of the time were based on divisions"
    •  Done
  • grammar: "These influence include..."
    •  Done
  • "heroic guerilla who is well-suited to lead the country" --> "heroic guerilla well-suited to lead the country"
    •  Done
  • "naivity" --> "naivety"
    •  Done
  • "than Kim Il-sung — such as Ch'ŏl-ho, Kkot-pun, and Sŏk-jun — and by extension": the emdashes should be unspaced here, or should be replaced with spaced endashes. As you use spaced endashes earlier, I'd suggest changing to this style here for consistency;
    •  Done
  • you use a short citation system for Gabroussenko 2005, but not for other works such as Myers 2011, Myers 2015, Dae-Sook Suh 1981, or Gobroussenko 2010 (there are a few others, I think, this is not exhaustive). This should probably be consistent;
    • The style I use is short citations whenever I cite multiple locations (i.e. pages) of the same work. If I only cite one page from a book, I will present the long citation straight away without a short citation.
      • No worries, seems fair enough. I think a couple of editors use this style also, although on first glance it appears inconsistent to me. Definitely not a warstopper, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • not sure about the punctuation here: "[A Study on Long Epic Poetry Titled 『Mt. Baekdu』 – Focusing on Creative Intention –]" --> "[A Study on Long Epic Poetry Titled "Mt. Baekdu" – Focusing on Creative Intention]"?

 Done

  • the infobox mentions a few things that aren't in the article, which probably should be: the prizes, his marriage/child etc.
    •  Done. Added the marriage and child. The prizes were already there.
Thank you for the suggestions, AustralianRupert. I have tried to answer them above to the best of my ability. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This review is probably close to being able to be successfully closed. It probably just needs an image review. Unfortunately, I'm probably not in a position to review these images. @Nikkimaria: would you mind taking a look at the images in this article? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Comments: (while the title will be useful, it should not hold up A-class) Some really minor things...

  • "there amplified his Russian and Soviet sides.[16] He returned to the Far East and" - suggest putting a paragraph split here.
    •  Done
  • "reluctant to visit places of work.[22] His role in shaping North" - and here
    •  Done
  • "These very works" - drop the "very"
    •  Done
  • "Cho released a novel" - do we know the name of it?
    • Not sure. The sources I cite for the novel (English language abstracts of Korean journal articles) don't mention it. I'll have to look if some of those actual articles do. I didn't find this information in the English language sources that I use in the article. I'll need to investigate this.
  • "While still at the Pedagogical Institute, Cho released a novel. The novel describes anti-Japanese armed struggle,[3] and is similar" - perhaps "While still at the Pedagogical Institute, Cho released a novel describing the anti-Japanese armed struggle. It is similar..."
    •  Done

That's about it! Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions, Maury Markowitz. I've implemented the easy fixes. As for the name of the novel Cho wrote in the Soviet Union, I'll have to dig deeper. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Mosaic_Depicting_Kim_Il_Sungs_Homecoming,_Pyongyang,_North_Korea_(2907648510).jpg: typically 2D works like mosaics or murals do not garner a copyright for the photographer. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done @Nikkimaria: dropped the cc-by-2.0 tag. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:52, 29 July 2017 (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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Bill McCann[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Bill McCann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Bill McCann was a decorated South Australian soldier of WWI who became a barrister and went on to lead the Returned and Services League in South Australia for seven years during the interwar period. He was also the state prices commissioner from 1938–1954, and nearly had his house burned down as a result of his anti-blackmarketeering work. He was awarded the OBE and CMG for his services to the veteran community. This article recently went through a comprehensive GA review which resulted in significant improvements, and I am keen to see what else can be done to tighten it up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I reviewed this article for GA and, having examined the edits made since then, am satisfied that it also meets the A-Class criteria. Well done. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Looks good.

  • "before being seconded to a training battalion in the United Kingdom in late December." It was the 1st Training Battalion on 30 December 1917. He was posted to the 2nd Training Battalion on 1 January, and returned to the 1st on 25 April 1918.
  • I thought it was unnecessary to state which units, just that he was in a training role in the UK during that period.
  • "While serving in the AIF he had been appointed an honorary major in the peacetime army, the Citizen Military Forces (CMF)." Members of the AIF were entitled to retain their AIF rank as an honorary rank in the AMF. So he wore the rank badges of a major, and everyone called him "major", but he was only paid according to his substantive rank. Conservative politicians thought that this saved the government money. McCann was not an officer before the war; he was appointed a major in the Reserve of Officers on 1 October 1920, having been an honorary major since 21 October 1918. McCann became a major in the AIF in 1918, and was promoted to lieutenant colonel in 1927; whereas a regular officer like, say, Alan Vasey was promoted to major in the AIF in 1917, and to lieutenant colonel in 1937.
  • So, have I got that wrong? Was it the AMF rather than the CMF at that time? I'm not sure what I need to do here.
    No, it's fine. The CMF was part of the AMF at the time. I was trying to decide whether you made it sound exceptional, when it was everybody. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Made some minor tweaks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looks good. I think there is a bit of variation on bar and Bar, but I'm happy to go with the flow. Just checking if I need to address anything? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's all fine. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a very impressive article, and I think that the A-class criteria are met. I have only a single comment:

  • "His only pre-war military experience was four years in the volunteer cadets. While training as a teacher he was a member of the University of Adelaide rifle club" - this is a bit unclear, as rifle clubs of this era were quasi-military organisations which did a lot more than just practice marksmanship. They were effectively semi-trained reserve military units in many cases. The military aspect of the clubs seems to have been particularly strong in SA during the era McCann participated in one: [32] (also, should it be "University of Adelaide Rifle Club"?). Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much. I joined the sentences with an "although", and capitalised the Rifle Club. Does that address this comment? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not entirely, as the 'only pre-war military experience' doesn't really work with the 'although'. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good - I've tweaked it a bit for flow, but of course please revert if you prefer the earlier version. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This one is progressing well, Nikkimaria would you mind looking at the image licensing? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2017 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Maurice Wilder-Neligan[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Maurice Wilder-Neligan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Wilder-Neligan, also known variously as "Mad Neligan" and "Wily Wilder", was an English-born soldier who rose from the rank of private on enlistment to command the South Australian-raised 10th Battalion during the latter stages of World War I. He was an eccentric soul, well known for embarrassing his officers and carrying out various "stunts", like handing out copies of British newspapers to his men while they were waiting to attack, but also highly regarded for looking after his soldiers' needs. His tactical skills were impressive, with one of his operations being described as "the best show ever done by a battalion in France". The most highly decorated man to command the 10th Battalion during the war, and wounded several times, he survived the war only to die in New Guinea as a member of the post-war administration of the former German colony, apparently as a result of his war wounds. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • PD-1996 generally requires that the images were published, not just created, before 1989/1964/copyright relations, as applicable. Is that the case for all of these? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day Nikkimaria. Except for the last one, they are all part of the collection of the Australian War Memorial, which is not just a memorial, but also a museum open to the public. Anyone can view any images in the collection since the Memorial was opened in 1941. It was my understanding that this meets the definition of publication used by Commons? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. My reading of that would be they were only considered "published" if displayed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying they would have to be part of a display within the Memorial to meet the publication definition, rather than being available for viewing? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's my understanding of the requirements for that tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, were any of these published, or is there some other tag that would apply? When were these digitized? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the author of File:AWM P02194.008 Wilder-Neligan at Gallipoli.jpg died in 1922, so I assume that I can use PD-US-unpublished? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why I'm wondering about digitization date - was it before or after 2002. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have emailed the AWM to check, but I believe after 2002. I certainly wasn't aware of them digitising files back then. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two Three things:
    1. Our legal advice is that in Australia, "published" legally means when they were "made available to the public". This includes depositing in an open archive.
    2. Copyright on Commonwealth/State/Territory-owned images expires 50 years from creation. The Australian government asserts that copyright expiration is worldwide. This is the same as an earlier declaration by the UK government. See OTRS Ticket#2017062010010417.
    3. The digitisation effort is ongoing at the War Memorial, but WWI images were digitised and made available online back in 1995.
    Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Hawkeye7. So what US license do you use for this type of image taken during WWI? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would use PD-US-URAA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Hawkeye. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Final one Hawkeye7, I'd like to link to the OTRS ticket using the template, but don't have the ID number. Can you provide? Or the url? I'm a novice with OTRS. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The OTRS is just above. I created a commons template {{PD-AustraliaGov}} but its not working properly. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed now. We have {{PD-AustraliaGov}} templates on both WP/en and Commons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now added that license to all the images used in the article, and have also noted on each one that in Australia, "published" legally means when they were "made available to the public". This includes depositing in an open archive.

Comments: I hope you don't mind these being piecemeal!

  • "having lowered his age and given Auckland as his place of birth." - is there any indication in sources why he would do so? The age issue is worth mentioning because...
  • "He had first attempted to enlist under his true name and age" - if his age several years later did not initially concern him, I'm curious why he would have changed it the first time.
  • There is a fair bit of mystery about his guy due to the name changes and providing incorrect personal details, and the sources don't say. I imagine that there was a maximum age for the Royal Horse Artillery in peacetime, and at 28 maybe he was too old. The recruiting standards for the AIF in WWI were probably significantly different from the RHA in peacetime.
  • "before leaving his wife and child at their Park Lane home in London " - "leaving" means something fairly specific in Canadian English, similar to "abandoned". If this is not what occurred you might consider rewording this section. I see no further mention of the marriage so it's not clear to me.
  • I think leaving is just meant in its simplest application, rather than with that connotation. The wife is mentioned at the end, it isn't clear what their relationship was like actually, I mean he left them in London, and despite being in that part of the world after the war, returned to Australia. Maybe he was a remittance man or something, but the sources don't say.
  • "Fierce bomb fights " - are these hand grenades, or something else?
  • linked hand grenades
  • "New Britain. Early in January " - suggest para break here.
  • "sailed for Rabaul. Going ashore to rest" - and here.
  • I've split the para once, I think that achieves the aim.

Not much else to say. I found the writing engaging easy to follow, and complete cradle to grave. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Maury! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Maury, are you happy with my responses? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, support, appologies for letting this one get away from me. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "He was given the regimental number 974" Um, in the Great War, First AIF service numbers were regimental numbers, meaning that they were allocated by each battalion. So there were 60 or more soldiers with service number 974. You need to state what battalion he was in. (This doesn't apply to the Second AIF, which used a better system, whereby everyone was uniquely identified by their service number.) So move this after you identify the 9th Battalion.
  • Good point, done.
  • Why not say what ship he sailed on? (It was the Themistocles).
  • Done.
  • "According to his biographer, A. J. Hill" Link Alec Hill (And in the references down the bottom)
  • Thanks, done.
  • "The new divisional commander, Major General William Glasgow" At this point, we remember that you never did state the the 9th Battalion was part of the 1st Division.
  • Added that in up the top.

Looks good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Hawkeye7. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments – this is a well written, comprehensive and solid article. I only have a few minor comments:

  • I made a couple of minor formatting and prose tweaks – these are my edits.
Great, thanks.
  • "after which he travelled to Australia." – Worth, I think, noting either the year he arrived in Australia or that he worked in Queensland, just to show that his arrival did not directly coincide with the war.
Added a bit to clarify.
  • "He was enlisted as a private in" –> "He was allotted as a private to" (just to avoid repetition in phrasing)
tweaked the sentence.
  • Delink Egypt as a well-known country
Done.
  • May be worth providing just slightly more context on Wilder-Neligan's time in Egypt (i.e. the battalion was in training) and the Gallipoli invasion.
Added a bit.
  • Regarding his Gallipoli wounding and MiD, is it known how he was wounded or why he was mentioned?
No.
  • "days leading up to the raid. On the night of the raid" – Suggest tweaking to avoid close repetition of "raid"
used "operation"
  • "and "mopping-up" of pockets of resistance"
Done.
  • "He was also away for another week in late January." – Is the reason for his absence known?
Unrecorded.
  • Is the reason for his fourth MiD known?
No, the paperwork is a bit of a shambles.
  • "An example of this was that during the fighting for Lihons" – "this" is not entirely clear in the sentence.
Good point, I've trimmed it.
  • Is it known why he was awarded the Croix de guerre or MiD for the fifth time?
No
  • "He had many eccentric habits" – aside from the newspaper incident, is there another example or two of Wilder-Neligan's eccentricity?
Added one about him chasing his officers off the parade ground on horseback and shouting at them using a megaphone.
  • Is it known whether Wilder-Neligan had much further contact with his wife and daughter after leaving them in London in 1911?
No, the sources don't explain what went on there, he may have been a remittance man or something similar.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all these, Abraham, B.S., these are my edits, let me know what you think? Thanks for the review, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of my comments have been addressed, so I'm happy to support. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2017 (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 Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Army of the Rhine and Moselle[edit]

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

Army of the Rhine and Moselle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Part of a series on the French Revolutionary Wars, in 1796. My drop down menu doesn't work, so I have to create this page manually. Hope I did it right. auntieruth (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • There's some significant sandwiching of text between the Evolution diagram and the campaignbox - would it be possible to default collapse the campaignbox, or otherwise rework the layout to avoid this?
  • File:Battle_of_Heidelberg-Handschuhsheim_1795.jpg needs a US PD tag, as does File:Pichegru.jpg
  • File:Gouvion-saint-cyr.jpg is tagged as lacking source information. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • added source info on saint-cyr, I'm not sure of proper tag for Pichegru and this one. Book from which the prints came was published in 1865. Artist died in 1831. auntieruth (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67[edit]

G'day Ruth, I have a few comments/queries:

  • the lead is a bit light-on given the size of the article. I'd expect to see two to three fair-sized paras summarising the exploits of the army fixed
  • is there a surplus e in levée en massee? fixed
  • generally, I would try to avoid placing phrases or sentence fragments in parentheses, as it impedes the flow of the prose eg (which would protect the regime in Paris) and (Flanders Campaign) I suggest you just use a comma or semicolon or a conjunction fixed
  • consistency in the initial caps with the nomenclature of formal armies ie Army of the Moselle, army of the North. Suggest that if they were the formal names of the armies, an initial cap for Army is appropriate fixed
  • also, if these were armies that existed for any length of time, should they be redlinked? fixed links to articles
  • Pichegru is introduced in the body without his full title and name with link title is general
  • I mean that he is just mentioned by surname, not having been previously introduced. When he is first mentioned, it should be in full with his rank, and his name should be linked done
  • @Peacemaker67: my leads do tend to be light. Fixed what you've suggested.  :) looking for more feedback! auntieruth (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Note 1 should have the page range instead of 111+ done
  • in the Order of Battle table, is Commander a title or a position? Also, it seems to me that their full names should be shown, not piped to their surnames. Is there a reason for this approach? The rationale was that the brigades/divisions took on the names of their commanders. Brigade Smith, Division Jones But I've linked to their names directly
  • also in the table, 15th Regiment cavalry(four squadrons) needs a space, also there appears to be two instances of 15th Regiment cavalry and 2nd Regiment cavalry fixed
  • also in the table, Reserve Commander probably doesn't need to be bolded, and was Saint-Cyr the commander of both Center and Reserve, ie Bourcier's boss? No, the reserve usually followed the Center column in the line of march, because the reserve and the center were smaller than the wings. St Cyr commanded only the center.
  • also in the table, there is some inconsistency with the descriptions of regiments, some are rendered Dragoons with an initial cap, other such as hussars and infantry have an initial lower case. I don't know the troop types well enough to have an opinion, but in more modern regiments, they would probably be rendered 6th Dragoon Regiment, for example? fixed (I hope)
  • also in the table, there are two 10th Demi-brigades of infantry and two 3rd Demi-brigades of infantry? That could have been bloody confusing... :)
  • Yes I'm sure it was. One was de ligne, and one was de légère, which were two different types. auntieruth (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • also in the table, some regiments are just listed as cavalry, I thought in those times, all cavalry were of a type, dragoons, hussars etc? Source does not specify
  • is there an article for Army of the Lower Rhine and Army of the Upper Rhine? or redlink? no, and need not be an article--they were in place less than 6 months, on paper only
  • Jean-Charles Pichegru should be moved up to where he is first mentioned, and this instance should just be Pichegru (see my earlier comment) done
  • in the 1795 table, Mannheim is listed as a French victory, but the narrative suggests otherwise? yes french victory then Austrian one
  • This still doesn't make any sense, all the narrative in the table against Mannheim indicates a Austrian victory, there is no mention of French success it was complicated. does this revision work better?
  • link Army of the Holy Roman Empire where Reichsarmee is used done
  • when the 74th etc are mentioned, I suggest the term Demi-brigade be used as well not all units were demi brigades. I think these weren't.
  • link French Directory done
  • suggest The Rhine Campaign of 1796 opened done
  • link Rhine at first mention and drop this one done
  • Kléber should be in full and linked at first mention, then Kléber thereafter done
  • Jean-Baptiste Jourdan is already linked, but Jean Baptiste Jourdan is also linked, one is a redirect, second one should just be Jourdan I think I've fixed this
  • first Wetzlar? Should that be First Battle of Wetzlar? Reads a bit oddly at present first battles of Altenkirchen and Wetzlar, I cleaned it up a bit
  • Army of Sambre & Meuse is also rendered as Army of Sambre et Meuse, same issue with Army of Rhin-et-Moselle. Suggest standardising with English versions yep I thought I had them all
  • When stating which Landgraviate etc places were in, use the past tense, as those political subdivisions no longer exist updated
  • suggest Altenkirchen was only a distraction done
  • Archduke Charles has already been linked, move the full name up to first mention, leave this one as just Archduke Charles done
  • Jean Victor Marie Moreau has already been introduced above, unless there is another Moreau to differentiate him from, suggest just Moreau after that done
  • the bit about the distraction isn't clear. If Jourdan was supposed to draw Archduke Charles away to let Moreau cross the Rhine, how does Kleber come into it? This section of the para needs some work to make clear the scheme of maneuver. The whole para could benefit from some tightening up of the explanation of what went on. done
  • who was the Condé? link? done
  • demi-brigade should be linked at first mention in the article done
  • what were the 68th, 50th and 68th line infantry? Demi-brigades? It's just they are not mentioned earlier done; it's really not clear what they were, but since they aren't part of Smith's Order of Battle; Graham mentions them, and I think they were part of Ferino's lot: added a note to that effect
  • similarly, the 3rd Hussars is mentioned, but doesn't appear in the orbat table, was it a new inclusion? no I think but I'm not sure that they were part of Ferino's wing

@Peacemaker67: I think I have them all! thanks for such a careful read through! auntieruth (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest defaulting the War of the First Coalition side navigation template to "hide", it currently creates an enormous amount of whitespace not sure how to do this
  • in addition several the French is missing a word I think fixed
  • Not sure about the initial caps on Left Wing in the table consistent with the rest
  • link Malsch, and state it is a village, otherwise it might be thought it was a person done
  • in the table, Neresheim says French victory, but reads like Charles won clarified
  • in the table, Upon reaching a few miles XXXX of seems like it is missing a cardinal point here (ie east etc) fixed
  • in the table, the Kehl narrative begins abruptly and in lower case, something is missing fixed
  • in the table, there are random double square brackets in the Kehl narrative fixed
  • what is 21 Nivôse? fixed
  • the sentence beginning "The resurrection of the marchalate" is too long, needs to be split fixed
  • there's a Sambre-et-Meuse in the commanders table update
  • Military Affairs needs an ISSN or similar done
  • Phipps needs an OCLC or similar done

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hawkeye7[edit]

  • The lead doesn't summarise the article; it contains matter that is not in the article anywhere. I weeded some of it out.
  • "Principle Conflicts of the Army of the Rhine and Moselle 1795" Should be "Principal" (Consider tossing these headings, as they duplicate the table headings) done
  • Why are some books in the references and some not? fixed
  • Italicise Ancien Régime done

Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, Ruth, this article looks quite good to me. I have a couple of minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • refs 34 & 35 should probably be combined with a named ref done
  • same as above for 28 & 33 done
  • there are no dab links, and I think I got all of the duplicate links
  • I made a few minor tweaks to hopefully improve internal consistency (please check you are happy with these) done
  • unless I missed it, the disbandment date of 29 September and the merger into the Army of Germany does not seem to be mentioned in the body of the article (suggest adding this in) added.  :)
  • these are my edits: [33] thank you! auntieruth (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2017 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Hurricane[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

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

Toolbox

Previous review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Hurricane/archive1

We terminated this a week ago pending official confirmation that crown copyright expires worldwide after 50 years. I now have official confirmation.

So we can proceed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this in detail at GAN and have looked at the improvements made since. I believe it meets the A-Class criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Llammakey

  • Clement Attlee should be linked at first mention in text along with giving his full name, in the third paragraph of Background. Also what was Attlee's role at the 9 November meeting? Was he the Prime Minister at that point? It says he is in the following paragraph, but that's kinda confusing to have his full introduction a paragraph later.
    Moved the introduction up a paragraph. Attlee was "a modest man, with a great deal to be very modest about". Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's been an attempt to re-habilitate Attlee's repution, but he's the kind of guy who inspires apathy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from that, great article Llammakey (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after changes Llammakey (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This article is in good shape - I have only the following comments:

  • "At the time Britain was still Australia's major trading partner, although it would be overtaken by Japan and the United States by the 1960s. The two countries still had strong cultural ties, and Menzies was strongly pro-British. Australian and British troops were fighting the communists together in the Korean War and the Malayan Emergency" - it would be worth also noting here that Australian foreign and military policies and plans of this era continued to be closely integrated with those of the British (eg, the main tasks for the Army were seen as reinforcing the British in either Egypt or South East Asia in the event of a major war, and the Navy had similar plans).
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Australia's (somewhat vague) consideration of a nuclear weapons program also influence the decision to agree to host this test
    checkY Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The LSTs carried twelve and five LCMs and twelve LCAs" - the figures on the LCMs are a bit unclear (did some of the ships carry 12 and others 5?)
    checkY No, they carried five LCMs and twelve LCAs between them. Normally you put two LCMs on the top of an LST with two LCAs inside each. Then you load the ballast tanks on one side of the LST and the LCM slides into the water. The LCAs are then floated out. So there should have been 6 and 12; one LCM must have been lost somehow. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "instead of traversing the Suez Canal" - can you say why the Canal wasn't used?
    checkY I thought I had, but it was in the High Explosive Research article. Added. There's a whole article on the subject, which is linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the atomic bomb which was tested perform as expected?
    checkY Yes it did. Added this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there ever an assessment of the health effects of the test on the involved personnel?
    checkY Several. None were conclusive. Added a paragraph on this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, was a clean-up to remove radioactive material ever undertaken? (as was the case on the mainland test sites) Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to my knowledge. Added a bit about the Gorgon gas project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What would be really cool would be to send a wiki-photograher out to the Monte Bello Islands. I wonder if Bidgee is available? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I've checked changes since the last nom, and tweaked only a little, so ready to support but I think it'd be a good idea for Nikkimaria to give the images the once-over again first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • {{PD-1923}} generally shouldn't be used for post-1923 photos - if they were published pre-1978 the URAA tag would work better. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the PD-1923 tags. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Have URAA tags been substituted per Nikki's recommendation? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No. URAA is for items that have expired before 1 January 1996 (ie were created before 1 January 1946). Rather, these are government images created before 1 January 1967, which are in the public domain because copyright has expired, and the Australian government asserts that its copyright expires world-wide. But there is no template for this on Commons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have only one comment for the entire article: "arrived the day before on a Sunderland flying boat" - this is somewhat redundant given a passage only a little bit above. Perhaps "arrived the day before on a Sunderland". That's it, I read the whole thing straight through and think it's fantastic (and at places both funny and illiminating - the charts are from the Beagle!?). Feel free to ping me when this goes to FA. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done. High Explosive Research is currently at FAC, and this article will follow. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2017 (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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

SMS Brandenburg[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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

Toolbox

Another recent overhaul of an old German battleship article originally written several years ago. This one was the first ocean-going battleship built by the German Empire, and so didn't see any significant action. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Peacemaker67[edit]

This article is in very good shape. I have a few comments/queries:

  • in the lead, after German Navy, there is Navy, should probably be in lower case
    • Fixed
  • suggest linking ship commissioning in the lead and body at first mention
    • Done
  • draft in the body doesn't match the infobox
    • Fixed
  • the full combat load displacement conversions in the body and infobox don't match
    • Fixed
  • consistency between whether you put a period after division and squadron ordinals ie I Division in the lead and II. Division in the body, there are other examples
    • Should all be standardized now
  • Kiel and Kattegat are overlinked
    • Fixed
  • Augusta should be properly introduced as Kaiserin or whatever her title was, and linked
    • Good idea
  • what is a hamper? link?
    • Linked to the wiktionary definition
  • should Baltic cruiser division have initial caps? Assuming it was the title of a division rather then just a descriptor
    • No, the title would have been the IV Scouting Group, if I remember correctly.
  • references are all reliable specialist naval books

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Anotherclown[edit]

  • All tool checks ok (no dabs, external links ok, no repeat links, no issues with ref consolidation, etc), Earwig reveals no issues with close paraphrase or copyviolations [34] (no action req'd).
  • Prose here is a little repetitive: "The next day, while she was in Kiel, Czar Nicholas II of Russia inspected Brandenburg while he..." ("while she" followed by "while he"). Its a minor nitpick but you might consider rewording (suggestion only).
    • Good idea, I've reworded it.
  • "...for use as a distillation..." - what were they destilling? Water? Booze? If known it could possibly be clarified (very minor point though).
    • Yes, water - clarified in the text
  • Otherwise this looks fine to me and I couldn't see any issues following a complete read through. Anotherclown (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Llammakey[edit]

  • Would link the following in text: knot, nautical mile, draft, launched, Brandenburg Wilhelm II (would also mention his title since you have Prince Heinrich and the Swedish king later in the text), Prince Heinrich, sister ship, conning tower, superstructure, grounding, broken up
    • Linked all, though Kaiser Wilhelm II is linked and introduced the first time he's mentioned, as is Heinrich and sister ship
  • Abbreviate 11 inch since the cm is already abbreviated or alternatively, hyphenate, since it's an adjective
    • Done
  • Indian Ocean is linked, but Atlantic is not, nor is the Baltic Sea - would suggest unlinking it to be consistent
    • Done
  • Aside from these suggestions, looks good. Llammakey (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami_IV[edit]

I made a single edit to a section title I thought was needed. I've made comparisons to similar German battleships that are Featured, and I think that this passes muster. –Vami_IV✠ 01:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comments from auntieruth[edit]

  • ...which increased parliamentary resistance to further increases in naval budgets; this led to an initial rejection of funds for the first armored cruiser, Fürst Bismarck. Admirals Eduard von Knorr and Hans von Koester criticized the comment, forcing Hollmann to publicly apologize this portion of sentence is very confusing. Actually the whole sentence is.
  • link Barbettes
  • I made a couple of minor edits [here] and [here]. auntieruth (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from AustralianRupert[edit]

Had a look at the images, but I am by no means an expert. I have a couple of queries: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "File:S.M. Linienschiff Brandenburg.jpg": can an English description be added to the Commons page for this? Also, the source seems a bit indistinct. Is it a book? If so, who is the author, publisher etc?
    • Expanded the caption - yes, it's a book, but I'm not sure which one. I'd assume this one, since the year matches, but I'm not sure.
  • "File:SMS Brandenburg (1891).jpg": can the title of the source be translated?
    • Added
  • "File:Contemporary map of Tsingtau and the Shandong Peninsula.png": same as above, also do we know what its status in Germany is? (not a warstoper, though)
    • Added - though I'm not exactly sure the status in Germany is what's relevant. It was published in Shandong, and I have no idea what happened to copyrights in former colonies in China. It could very well be PD, but I haven't the foggiest.
  • "File:SMS Brandenburg NH 88644.tiff": the source link on this image seems to go to a different photo [35]?  Done
    • I fixed the link above but unsure about the rest. Anotherclown (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, AC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for taking care of that one, AC. Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for those changes. Pretty sure the images should be ok now, but happy if someone with more knowledge in this area wants to take a look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2017 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Yugoslav destroyer Beograd[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Yugoslav destroyer Beograd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Beograd is a classic example of a WWII Yugoslav ship in that she served several masters. The lead ship of her class, she was commissioned shortly before the war, then captured by the Italians in April 1941 and used by them as an escort on the North Africa run before being captured from them by the Germans in September 1943. She was then employed by them in the Adriatic until almost the last week of the war when she was either sunk or scuttled at Trieste. All suggestions for improvements gratefully received. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy[edit]

Looks like a great article. I did some research (everything appears accurate) and found some information which you might want to include. According to the following source [Preston, Antony; Jordan, John; Dent, Stephen (2005). Warship. Conway Maritime Press. p. 99.] the Beograd's keel was laid down in 1936. Also it notes that while she was designed to have a top speed of 39 knots (somewhat different from your source, which says 38), "in practice" she only reached 35. Hope this helps! -Indy beetle (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, thanks for that, Indy beetle! I have added the keel laying detail and linked, and added the other detail cited to Preston et al. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On that note I'm happy to offer this article my support for A-class. Keep up the great work! -Indy beetle (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Llammakey[edit]

  • Propeller is mispelled in description section. Should also be linked. Nautical miles too should be linked.
  • Sister ship should be linked
    • Both  Done
  • Instead of "when Beograd was damaged by near misses from Italian aircraft off Šibenik when her starboard engine was put out of action, after which she limped to the Bay of Kotor for repairs, escorted by the remainder of the force" I suggest " but the naval prong of the attack faltered when Beograd's starboard engine was put out of action after a series of near misses from Italian aircraft off Šibenik. The destroyer then limped to the Bay of Kotor for repairs, escorted by the remainder of the force"
    • Good suggestion,  Done
  • Some discussion of her commissioning into the Yugoslav navy somewhere. You have a date in the infobox, but it's not cited anywhere.
    • last sentence of the Description and construction section
  • Minelaying should be linked.
    •  Done
  • Good article overall Llammakey (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: Nice work. I have a few prose suggestions, but otherwise it looks pretty good to me: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Her turbines were rated at 40,000 shp (30,000 kW)[a]..." instead of contrasting the figures with the note, maybe it would be easier to contrast them in text. For instance, "Her turbines were rated at between 40,000 shp (30,000 kW) and 44,000 shp (33,000 kW)..."
  • Done, it was a bit clunky.
  • "which gave her a radius of action of 1,000 nautical miles" --> "which gave her an action radius of 1,000 nautical miles"
  • Done.
  • "She was laid down in 1936...": I suggest moving this sentence down into the Service history section
  • I see that information as part of her construction details rather than service history, and I think that is the general approach used by others.
  • No worries, my main concern is that the following section starts abruptly, so I was thinking moving something down into it might help. Otherwise, I wonder if there is something that can be done about the first sentence of the Service history section. For me the ship just seems to appear in the UK as if viewed from a different perspective than the subject of the article itself...Hmm, not sure I'm articulating my concern very well. Sorry. I will have a think about this a bit more and get back to you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the infobox: "Speed: 38 knots" --> I wonder if this shouldn't be 35 knots as the body notes that the vessel only achieved 35 knots in service
  • Good point, fixed.
  • I found the start of the "Italy" section a little abrupt. I wonder if potentially, this might be smoother: "In Italian service, Beograd was refitted and repaired..."
  • Good suggestion, done.
  • "It is likely that her aft...": I'd suggest potentially attributing this in text. For instance, "According to author M.J. Whitley..."
  • Done.
  • "The term Ausland and prefix TA referred to the fact that she was..." --> "The term Ausland and prefix TA were used to denote that she was..."?
  • Done.
  • what did the ship do between September 1943 and February 1945? Was it still under repair/refit, or when did that finish?
  • I think the implication is that she didn't go back into service until February 1945, given she was damaged/unserviceable at time of capture and also had her armament augmented, but none of the sources say that.

Image review (and a suggestion) by Ian[edit]

  • The sole image (used in several related articles) is appropriately licensed.
  • PM, I won't go through the whole article but would just suggest that you could apply recommendations from the Beograd-class FAC that are relevant to this article (if you haven't done so already of course).

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Ian Rose, there was only the one that I could see, but I did some cross-pollination back the other way as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:50, 18 July 2017 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Ernest Titterton[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Ernest Titterton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Together with Mark Oliphant and Philip Baxter, he is one of the "Nuclear Knights" Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Finnusertop[edit]

Overall, an excellent biography about a fascinating person. Below are some comments, all of which are mere suggestions instead of "no-go" items.

  • Wikilink "diurnal variation" (but not to diurnal variation which seems to be about biology)
    checkY Linked to diurnal cycle Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why you need two citations to cite the quotation: "nuclear power is the cheapest, cleanest and safest method of power production yet devised by man". If you really need to use "Nuclear Power and the Anti-Nuclear Movement: A Modern Social Problem", a page number and more metadata would be appreciated.
    checkY Added. There are actually two references, to a book and a paper. Split the two. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ernie's erection" (quotation marks here, perhaps)
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During his career, Titterton received a plethora of awards", this sounds a little hyperbolic, and the sources you cite verify only the two most notable ones. A couple of other expressions ("of course, physics", "final report was scathing") are on the brink of being NPOV and OR, but I happen to think it's just good writing.
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if euthanasia were legal I should opt for it tomorrow", I tend to observe MOS:LWQ very closely; unless the person spoke or wrote in wikitext, wikilinks don't belong. Besides, euthanasia is a fairly common word.
    checkY I thought "diurnal" was. Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I support the promotion of this article to A-class status. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: not a lot stood out to me. I have the following comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • this sentence is missing something: "His physics teacher, William Summerhayes, who cultivated Titterton's interest in science."
    checkY Deleted "who" Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • minor inconsistency in date presentation: "Retrieved August 29, 2016" v. "Retrieved 31 May 2017"
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brian Martin (1980). "Nuclear Knights". Rupert Public Interest Movement." Is this a book, or a website? If the former, it's format doesn't seem consistent with the other books.
    checkY Re-formatted to refer to the book. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • watch out for overlink: the duplicate link script reports quite a few examples in the article (although several seem to be false positives)
    checkY Unfortunately, the duplicate script seems to be broken; it no longer recognises the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Philip Chapman and Ernest Titterton.jpg": probably needs an adjustment to the date listed on the image description page to indicate when the image was actually taken
    checkY Removed image. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by Peacemaker67[edit]

I reviewed this article at GAN and couldn't find much to comment on then. I have reviewed the changes since then, and just have a few comments:

  • his support for nuclear power in the lead is mentioned twice, suggest amalgamating it into one sentence
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Queen Elizabeth's Grammar school should have a capital S for School, as it appears to be the formal name of the school
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • and entered to sixth form
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaving his father was unemployed
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • paid his tuition fees, and board and residence
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • £92 University scholarship, drop the capital U
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This met with a lukewarm
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest linking PhD
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest dropping the the in "at the Bikini Atoll"
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • how was it that Oliphant could offer him the job? Perhaps include what role Oliphant was in at the time?
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest introducing the ANU initialisation at first mention
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • SS Oracades has an errant a
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a term in a foreign language, Bremsstrahlung really needs a part sentence describing what it is
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is the EN tandem?
    An electrostatic nuclear (EN) tandem accelerator Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "planning and conducting"
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the only query I have is whether sources (other than Waterford) have ever made comment on his involvement in the British nuclear tests
    checkY Oh sure. Added one by T. R. Ophel, author of A Tower of Strength: A History of the Department of Nuclear Physics, The Australian National University, 1950-1997 Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Anotherclown[edit]

  • Images all seem to be available under acceptable creative commons licences or have an appropriate fair use rationale (no action req'd as far as I can tell). Anotherclown (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2017 (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 AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Kaiman-class torpedo boat[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Kaiman-class torpedo boat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another article on a class of torpedo boat used by the Austro-Hungarians in WWI. This was a very successful type, and saw extensive service in the Adriatic during the war, engaging in shore bombardments, anti-submarine work and many other tasks. Most were scrapped after the war, but four saw service with the Royal Yugoslav Navy into the late 1920s. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Where were the 1st and 2nd Flotillas based? I think Greger should have this info - I'd assume Cattaro
  • I've extrapolated from where Greger says their depot ships were based, Cattaro and Pola.
  •  Done
  • I'm not so sure that the PD-USGov-Military-Navy template is right, since it's unlikely these were taken by USN personnel. The NHHC claims the copyright on the photos, but that's not the same as what the template states. Parsecboy (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Llammakey

  • Link ran aground to ship grounding,
  • Otherwise Support Llammakey (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • All tool checks ok (no dabs, no duplicate links, external links ok, Earwig tool reveals no issues with close paraphrase / copy vio [36]) - no action req'd.
    • Images all appear to be PD and have the appropriate information. Captions look ok (no action req'd).
    • "The lead boat of the Kaiman class was built by Yarrow Shipbuilders..." This poses a few questions which you might consider covering. For instance what were the circumstances surrounding the lead vessel being built by Yarrow (i.e a British shipbuilder)? Where was it built (Glasgow?) Was the class designed in the UK specifically for the Austro-Hungarians, or was it an existing design that was subsequently exported / licensed etc?
    • Looks in good shape to me overall. Anotherclown (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Anotherclown! It was a prototype built at Poplar in London, then plans were provided along with engineering assistance. I've added some detail that was there in the sources, but for some reason I hadn't included it... Definitely an improvement IMO, so thanks for raising it. Hopefully that addresses your queries? Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes that addition looks good to me. Adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2017 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Leuthen[edit]

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

Battle of Leuthen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Third of a four-part series on Frederick the Great's battles (others being Battle of Hochkirch and Battle of Kunersdorf, both which he lost miserably and both articles presently here for review, and Battle of Rossbach, still in puberty). My drop down menu doesn't work, so I have to create this page manually. Hope I did it right. auntieruth (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, Ruth, just some minor presentation comments to get started. I will look to try to read through the article more thoroughly later: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • there is some inconsistency in presentation of page ranges, forex "p. 212–215" v. "pp. 233–235" fixed
  • per WP:LAYOUT the Commons link should be at the top of the last section in the article (it just needs to be moved up slightly) moved up.
  • "The monument was dynamited during World War II..." --> by whom? don't know. source didn't say. probably the Russians.
  • in the References, is there an OCLC number for the Bodart book? no
  • in the References, same as above for Lindsay? done
  • in the References, suggest translating the titles of the foreign language works
  • in the References, " S. 745-746" --> "pp. 745-746"?
  • in the References, same as above for "S. 75"
  • in the References, "Band 3" --> "Volume 3"?
  • I typically don't translate, although I know some of the templates do. I find it makes the article and notes too cumbersome. I could be persuaded. auntieruth (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not wedded to translating titles, but I feel the peripheral items like page numbers and volume numbers should be changed to make it more reader friendly. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the review below: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • is this missing something after "by": " See Josef Wuk, Technisches polyglott-onomasticum: Oder Wörterbuch in sieben ... by , 1864"? Fixed.
  • in the infobox you have 167 and 210 guns, but I couldn't find these numbers in the body of the text (the Aftermath has "250 Austrian cannons", though...is this correct?) fixed
  • is there a word missing here: "invaded his ally's territory of Duchy of Hanover" --> "the Duchy of Hanover"? fixed
  • "captured another 2000 men and baggage..." --> "captured another 2,000 men and baggage" fixed
  • "File:Frederick the Great and his staff at the Battle of Leuthen by Hugo Ungewitter.jpg": suggest right aligning this image to avoid stacking two images together and so that the subjects face into the article fixed
  • "He secured the Nippern with eight grenadier..." --> "He secured Nippern with eight grenadier..."? companies. It was there....?
  • missing word: "the wing ended at stream and the village of Gahla..." --> "at the stream"? fixed
  • typo: "win the only weeks earlier at the Battle of Rossbach..." --> "win only weeks earlier at the Battle of Rossbach" fixed
  • "Prince Charles and Daun..." --> I don't think Daun has been formally introduced yet, I suggest using the full name and appointment here
  • "critical point could turn the tide of battle..." --> "critical point could have turned the tide of battle"
  • "26th Infantry" --> is there a wikilink that could be added for this unit? no it is not the same as 26th_Infantry_Division_(Wehrmacht).
    • I was thinking more about whether any of these articles might relate: Category:Units and formations of the Prussian Army, or indeed if it should be redlinked? Regardless, is "26th Infantry" a division or regiment? If possible, I'd suggest making it clearer, e.g. "26th Infantry Regiment" or "26th Infantry Division", whichever is correct. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • divisions are a Napoleonic era addition to nomenclature. A regiment was typically a collection of companies or squadrons, from 1-5 or six, under command (nominally at least) of a colonel and specifically a lieutenant colonel. It's likely that a full regiment wasn't there. the names of the regiments changed when the colonel/proprietor changed. Frederick started giving them numbers and subsequently historians always numbered them. The list in that categories is mostly 19th century. I will eventually organize this, if I can get a friend to help. auntieruth (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional thoughts on this: actually the 26th infantry is 19th century nomenclature added by Showalter. Although I'm sure it's correct, I've adjusted the text. auntieruth (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Schweidnitz water" or "the Schweidnitz river"? it was called the water.
    • No worries. I note that the maps in the article say "Schweidnitz River", though. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • hmmm, the sources say Weisstritz water, or Weistritz river, and it runs into the Schweidnitz, and then out of it, and then back into it. I adjusted this auntieruth (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "showed the world, meaning Europeans..." --> probably simpler to just say "showed Europe..." fixed

:hmmmm I have an Order of Battle. Should I add it? auntieruth (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think an order of battle would be a good idea, although if it is large making it a separate article might be a good idea. For instance, see Battle of Milne Bay order of battle as an example (although there are certainly many other ways of presentation etc.). There are many other example here: Category:Orders of battle. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's fairly big. I could probably shorten it, but I've only found one source, and I'm not sure...Tempelhoff has his issues. So I think I might let it up. auntieruth (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • In the second paragraph presumably the diversion was on the right and the surprise attack was on the left, but it would help to say so. fixed
  • "After Rossbach (5 November), the French refused" As it was before Leuthen, I would say "had refused". well, I couldn't find it. But actually it is right. After Rossbach, the French refused to fight an open battle against the Prussians. After Leuthen, the Austrians couldn't fight--at least until they had rebuilt their army over the winter.
  • "Laying between the Oder river and the foot of the Sudeten Mountains" I think it should be "lying" rather than "laying"
  • "They were hardly hills, more like hillocks, but they were high enough to provide a screen for his troops." This contradicts the earlier statement that the area was too flat for hiding manoeuvres. fixed
  • "Unfortunately for the Austrians, 40 squadrons of Prussian cavalry waited by Radaxdorf, commanded by Hans Joachim von Zieten, charged their flank;" The grammar is not right here. fixed
  • "Although he had grossly under-estimated the size of the Austrian force" You have not said this earlier - unless I have missed it. took out only in one source'
  • "in both polite and general circles" Is "general circles" a euphemism for lower classes? fixed
  • I would delete the words after "Prussia". actually, there were many kings, but he was King of Prussia. This made a difference. 17 years earlier, he was only King in Prussia.
  • A very good article. These queries are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - some minor cmts:
  • All tool checks ok, Earwig reveals no issues with close paraphrase or copyviolations [37] (no action req'd).
    • Prose is a little repetitive here: "The intent was clear: the Prussian infantry, now arrayed in the conventional two lines of battle, advanced on the weakest part of the Austrian line, intending..." ("intent" and "intending" in the same sentence). Oops. fixed.
    • Is there a typo here: "...he also placed such other losses such as..."? fixed.
    • I made a few changes here pls check over and amend if necessary. look good. thank you!
    • Otherwise looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anotherclown thank you for your comments and edits! Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: I've looked over the images now and they all appear to be PD and have the req'd information / tags. No issues as far as I can tell. Anotherclown (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2017 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

3rd Bengal Light Cavalry[edit]

Nominator(s): Exemplo347 (talk)

3rd Bengal Light Cavalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

After spotting an annoying red-link in articles related to the Indian rebellion of 1857, and not being a fan of placeholder stub articles, I decided to do a bit of research about the 3rd Bengal Light Cavalry. It was the actions of this unit that triggered the wider mutiny of the East India Company's Bengal Army but the unit itself, according to modern historians, is relatively unknown even in India. Being a bit of a nosey geek, I dug up what I could and turned it into an article! Exemplo347 (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, nice work. Overall, looks quite good to me. Just a couple of minor suggestions from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are a couple of "harvn" errors in the References: Hunter and Stafford. These do not appear to have corresponding short citations in the body of the article
  • for the two Amin works, "Defence Journal" should probably be in italics (not the website) as it is the name of the publication
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Illustrated London News", as above, should be in italics
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mens'..." --> "men's..."?
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An information plaque containing..." --> "An information plaque listing..."?
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roberts went on to say "After careful..." --> "Roberts went on to say "after careful..." (you can probably just silently adjust the capitalisation here to conform with sentence case capitalisation).
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest the addition of "Category:Military units and formations established in 1796" and "Category:Military units and formations disestablished in 1857"
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • for an article on the unit itself (rather than just its involvement in the Indian Mutiny), I think its battle history should be expanded a bit more to cover what it did during the three wars it appears to have fought in (Second Anglo-Maratha War, the First Anglo-Afghan War and the First Anglo-Sikh War). Would probably only need a reasonable sized paragraph on each, I think
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • for A-class, I think it would be good to expand the lead a little more to potentially two paragraphs to summarise the regiment's pre-Mutiny battle history a bit more
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by auntieruth Nice article! A few quibbles!!

  • need links in lead to wars, and links at first mention.
  • Commander in chief -- chief should be capitalized.
  • the list of battle honors is awkward--perhaps it should included in the text of the previous paragraphs. Do we know what they did to obtain their battle honors?
  • explanation of "drill" (or a link), or a combination of both.
nice job! auntieruth (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @Auntieruth55: I've made the changes you suggested. Just for your info, the battle honours in these cases were awarded for participation in the battles - beyond that, I have not been able to find specifics for this unit other than the fact that they were there and that they were awarded the battle honours. In the one case where I was able to find detailed information about an award (the Honorary Standard) I already incorporated the information into the article. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no problem on that. I reread it, and had one further comment: wouldn't it be useful to explain this in the context of the larger mutiny? and its causes? Seemed tome that there were some fundamental issues about perceived challenges to Indian religious foundations. Also, seems to me that this should at least mention the Enfield Rifle, because this was the weapon that the cav needed to learn to use. It's fundamentally different from their own muskets, which was why the "drill" was necessary. BTW, also, Governor-General should have both caps. Like Commander-in-Chief. auntieruth (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntieruth55: The reason I've chosen to narrow the focus to the specific reasons for this unit's mutiny, rather than going into the causes of the wider mutiny, is one of article balance. The Causes of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 article, itself a spin-off from the Indian Rebellion of 1857 article, is a mix of theories, some referenced, some not, whereas in this specific unit's case, the reasons for its mutiny have been documented carefully. I have added Causes of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 to a "See also" section at the bottom of the article, and the Indian Rebellion of 1857 is linked within the article's body. Regarding a mention of the Pattern 1853 Enfield rifle, it is already mentioned in the first paragraph of the "Meerut" section of the article. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the Enfield link. Missed it before. I still think it would be worthwhile to add a sentence or two at beginning and end and in lead that this was part of the wider problem that gave rise to the Indian Rebellion. It feels "adrift" to me. But it's not enough to stop support for A-class. I fixed a couple of spaces (extra ones). Nice job! auntieruth (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • All tool checks ok, Earwig reveals no issues with close paraphrase or copyviolations [38] (no action req'd).
    • "..Major General Hewitt convened a Court of Inquiry..." remove rank here (and subsequent instances) as usually only used at first instance per MOS:SURNAME
    • ".. the choice by Lieutenant Colonel Carmichael-Smyth..." as above re rank.
    • "...Lieutenant MacNabb, felt that the drill..." is MacNabb's first name available in the source? If so it should be added.
    • "... Brigadier General Wilson of the Bengal Artillery..." is Wilson's first name known?
    • Otherwise, I've read through this and couldn't find any major issues. Looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done @Anotherclown: All your concerns have been addressed (thanks AustralianRupert). Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: - in the absence of one of our more regular image reviewers I've looked over the images now. They all appear to be PD and have the appropriate information and templates as far as I can tell. Anotherclown (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • source review in the absence of regular source review editors, I've looked at the sources; most of them are current sources, with a few exceptions of contemporary commentary. Earwig's tool report is [here auntieruth (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2017 (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 AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Rochdale Cenotaph[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

Rochdale Cenotaph (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Rochdale has a population of over 100k and yet I'd wager that most non-Brits have never heard of it and most Brits couldn't find it on a map. Pevsner charmingly describes it as a "drab town". Still, it has a Lutyens war memorial, so here I am. The good people of Rochdale raised a handsome budget and the project proceeded smoothly compared to some of his others, so they were rewarded with one Lutyens' grander and more elegant designs. The article is shorter than some of the others because lack of controversy leaves less to write about, but I think it's comprehensive and I'm hoping to take it to FAC. Any feedback would be much appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have enough trouble finding places in Britain that I have heard about on a map. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Britain's not a huge place by Aussie standards. Point your finger at one of the non-green bits in the right sort of area and you probably won't be far off! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image Review
  • All images are appropriately licensed. I would have used the image down the bottom in the infobox, but it is missing the remembrance stone. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cannot see anything wrong with it. I was a little surprised at the Bibliography coming before the citations. The MOS (WP:FNNR) would have them the other way around. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! I don't know where I picked up that style but I've used it in almost all my articles. On the rare occasion that it's been questioned, I've always relied on WP:CITEVAR ("follow the established style, even if you think it's mad") and FA? 2c ("use any style you like, just do it consistently"). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying here is, just because the rules don't explicitly forbid something, you're gonna do it with the wind in your hair and all flags flying, just because it's sorta cool, sorta like scratching "HJ Mitchell was here" on the article, sorta like.. graffiti? I mean, of course I won't/can't oppose, but for the record, it's something like that, right? if so, then I have to admit, it's really cool.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think the MoS is a little too concerned with forbidding and prescribing, and if some of the more obscure parts ever saw the light of day we'd find that they were added on a whim by a single editor and aren't actually backed by consensus; it's just that most people don't care enough (they're busy writing articles, instead of telling other people how to write articles). Anyway, I copied the style from some other article years back and I've used it ever since. I guess 'putting my mark on it' has something to do with it but it wasn't my main motivation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MOS-blaming may be appropriate for some nitpicks, but this isn't a nitpick. It's a glaring discrepancy involving major sections. No one else will argue with your idiosyncratic method (and I will stop after this post) because 1) as a rule reviewers very often don't even look at citations/references, and 2) everyone knows it's a losing argument (not expressly forbidden). Unwatching, good luck with your nom.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd always done it the other way around, not because of the MOS, but because that it the way it appears in books. Only when I saw it done the other way did I think to look it up in the MOS. No big. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Linghi[edit]

  • Boorman in Bibliography but not in the Citations.
  • The History sentence contains exactly one sentence of History. I would suggest renaming the "Commissioning" to either "History" or "Commissioning and dedication", move the one sentence about dedication up to that section, delete the stuff about "The earl was a descendant " and the Manchester cenotaph, and rename the "History" section "Historic designation" or similar.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Linghi, thanks for looking. Well spotted on Boorman. Citing him now. With respect to the history section, it's more than just a sentence of history. The details of the unveiling are part of the history, and the reason Derby was chosen to do the honours is very relevant (there's a lot more that could be said about Derby; he's synonymous with recruiting in WWI and with the pals battalions). Likewise, a later decision to preserve it and a still later decision to upgrade its preservation status are part of its history. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by auntieruth[edit]

  • Solely on text. It looks good. It will probably run aground at FAC on MS:Caps for the same reason as the Norwich article. So when that is resolved, perhaps carry it over....? I don't have much opinion on bib/citation thing except that I usually expect it the other way around. In some countries, publication of the bibliography comes first. Before the text. As an historian, I like that, but I have no problem flipping to the end of the book to see the sources, either.... just my two cents! auntieruth (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite a support yet[edit]

Looking good; not quite a support from me yet, but all minor issues, listed below:

  • "pylon" - this is technically a correct term, but - particularly in the lead - will probably mislead the average reader, as the most common BritEng usage is "electricity pylon". Is there an alternative word that could be used?
    • I guess we could go with tower or pillar or something. You're right that electricity pylon is probably the first thing most people will think of, but I don't think it's a leap to infer the meaning of a tower that supports something else.
  • "A public in meeting in February 1919" > "A public meeting in February 1919"?
    • Fixed!
  • "a consensus for both a monumental memorial, a fund for the families of wounded servicemen, and the appointment of Lutyens to design the monument." - feels like three thing, rather than the two that a "both" would imply?
    • Tweaked.
  • "adjacent to the Town Hall " - as written, should definitely be in lower case I think (and is indeed in lower case later on)
    • Also tweaked.
  • "and Edward Stanley, 17th Earl of Derby unveiled" > "and Edward Stanley, 17th Earl of Derby, unveiled "
    • Done.
  • "The memorial today is a Grade I listed building, having been upgraded in 2015 when Lutyens' war memorials were declared a "national collection" and all were granted listed building status or had their listing renewed." could simply be "The memorial today is a Grade I listed building, having been upgraded in 2015 when Lutyens' war memorials were declared a "national collection"."? No need to describe what happened to the other memorials in the lead for this one...
    • Done.
  • "Lutyens designed the Cenotaph on Whitehall in London, which became the focus for the national Remembrance Sunday commemorations; the Thiepval Memorial to the Missing, the largest British war memorial anywhere in the world; and the Stone of Remembrance, which appears in all large Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries and in several of Lutyens' civic memorials, including Rochdale's." - the article has some dating issues here. It is a background section, and the next section begins in February 1919. The Cenotaph hasn't been built by then, the Thiepval Memorial is a decade away etc., but the style implies that it has already happened (as background) by 1919.
  • "almost three months to the day since the armistice," - this implies it was deliberate, but not sure if that is correct?
    • I doubt it was deliberate, probably just the first practical date after the dust had settled. I don't see the implication, but it can go if you feel strongly.
  • " which involved the demolition of Manor House to be replaced by a cenotaph and a Stone of Remembrance" - "to be replaced" felt awkward here
    • Copy-edited.
  • " Standing on the plain first tier" > " Standing on the plain, first tier"?
    • I'm not sure that's necessary with "plain first" (but would be with "first plain").
  • " second smaller tier" > " second, smaller tier"
    • Done.
  • "The flags stand to either side of a second smaller tier with a semi-column at either end, which culminates in a yet smaller plinth supporting a catafalque on which lies a sculpture of a draped human figure, a similar design to Lutyens' Midland Railway War Memorial in Derby." - becomes quite a long sentence by the end
    • Fixed (and added a detail—it was actually based on the MR's).
  • "They were rejected for Whitehall's Cenotaph in favour of fabric flags" - rejected by whom?
    • By the cabinet, but I'm not sure that's relevant to Rochdale (though Lutyens' disappointment at the decision and his use of the device elsewhere is, I think).
  • "made by the readers of the Rochdale Observer" are the italics correct here?
    • Yes, italics are standard for the names of newspapers.
  • " The earl was a descendant of a local family which had been involved in local politics for generations, and he himself served in various public offices during the First World War, including Director General of Recruiting, and later Secretary of State for War, before being appointed Britain's ambassador to France at the end of the war. " - another quite long sentence
    • Copy-edited.
  • "noting its visual relationship" capitalisation
    • Sorry if I'm being dense, but what's wrong with the capitalisation here?
  • "about 92% " - I think the MOS would prefer "92 percent"
    • Done.
  • "Amery, Colin; et al. (1981)" - I'd expect the "et al" to be specified/expanded here (or Amery to be defined as the editor, etc.)
    • There's a very long list of authors that would take up an inordinate amount of space and wouldn't really help the reader, which is why I just went with the first on the list.

Hchc2009 (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I'll get to these over the bank holiday weekend. I've got some other tinkering I need to do here as well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hchc2009: Apologies for the delay. I've addressed most of these now. I need to think about the chronology thing but I'll be back. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Content to support at A-Class. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Comments - count me a non-Brit who hasn't heard of Rochdale until now!

  • One duplicate link for the Rochdale Town Hall at the bottom of the article - there's a tool here you can use to find them done by auntieruth55
  • The link to cenotaph should be moved to the first occurrence (in the Background section) 'done by auntieruth55
  • The fact that the structure was modified to include the casualties of the Second World War seems to be dropped in without specific mention (i.e., the text is given, but the history section jumps from the unveiling of the Cenotaph to its designation in 1985 as a Grade II listed building) - when was this done? Parsecboy (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Parsecboy I couldn't find the dates of the addition of the WWII notation in his sources. I did fix the other two things you mentioned. HJ Mitchell seems to be MIA. auntieruth (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he made a few edits today, so maybe a @HJ Mitchell: is in order. Parsecboy (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -
    • All tool checks ok (i.e. no dabs, external links ok, no ref consolidation errors, no repeat links, Earwig tool reveals no issues [39]) (no action req'd).
    • I read over it and couldn't see any major issues which would preclude it from promotion. Anotherclown (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2017 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Rossbach[edit]

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

Battle of Rossbach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Fourth of a four-part series on Frederick the Great's battles (others being Battle of Hochkirch and Battle of Kunersdorf, both which he lost miserably and both articles presently here for review, and Battle of Leuthen, which he won a month after this one. My drop down menu doesn't work, so I have to create this page manually. Hope I did it right. auntieruth (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up all maps added upright= to all maps
  • File:Friedrich_Wilhelm_von_Seydlitz_Prussian_Cuirassiers_Seven_Years_War.jpg: what is the status of this work in its source country?
  • File:Rossbach-leuthen.svg: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: added sources with which I confirmed map data. Source country is Germany. Creator died in 1915. Not sure which template to use. auntieruth (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify: the work is derived from one by the creator who died in 1915, right? Is the derivative sufficiently original to warrant a new copyright? If so, what is that creator's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: I don't think it's sufficiently derivative to get a new copyright. He put it in svg to allow for translations, he says. And he released his work on it under creative commons. I've compared it to the info in the other texts, and it is the same. auntieruth (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, this refers to the second point above, not the third - it's an engraving after a painting. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without more information, I don't know either what the appropriate tag would be, unfortunately. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, overall this looks pretty good to me. I have a some minor nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Their regimental officers, most lacked even..." --> "Most of their regimental officers lacked even..." fixed
  • unless I missed it, I couldn't find the 42,000 figure from the lead and infobox in the body of the article. The body does seem to have "totaling 41,000 men, under the command...", though, so this inconsistency might need to be adjusted fixed
  • same as above for the number of guns mentioned in the infobox (for both belligerents) fixed
    • G'day, sorry I still can't find "79 guns" in the body. I see "plus 72 companies of artillery", should this be 79? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the infobox says 379 wounded for the Prussians, but the Aftermath section provides 430 wounded fixed
  • the infobox provides French and Austrian losses as 5,000 dead or wounded and 5,000 captured, but these figures don't seem to be in the body of the article fixed
    • Not sure if this has been rectified. From what I can tell, the body says "1,000 dead (including six generals), 2,400 wounded" which is inconsistent with the 5,000 number in the infobox; equally I couldn't find the figure of 5,000 captured. Ack, that there are differing figures in the sources, but the infobox should match the body of the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, clarified now. One source says 5k captured, another suggests 13,800, so....it's duly noted, and other numbers clarified. auntieruth (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From 1865–1990, the area was mined for lignite..." --> "From 1865 to 1990, the area was mined for lignite..."
  • "(German) Bodart, p. 220.": the "German" icon probably isn't needed here. Compare with "Clark, pp. 254–255" which doesn't have a French icon fixed
  • watch out for overlinking. The duplicate link tool reports the following: Seven Years' War, Holy Roman Empire, Prince Henry of Prussia (1726-1802) fixed
  • suggest cropping "File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F089045-0002, Roßbach, Gutshof Goldacker.jpg" changed size
    • Sorry, I probably wasn't clear. I meant that the white strip down the right hand side of the image should probably just be cropped off. It's not a warstopper for me, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's good, because the white edge contains the Bundesarchiv stamp, and should not be cropped. auntieruth (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day, Ruth, can you please clarify why you feel it shouldn't be cropped? The image is uploaded with a CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence which requires attribution, but I don't believe that means it needs to retain a watermark or similar credit to achieve this. The image description page itself provides the attribution in this regard. At least that was my understanding, and that is how I read WP:WATERMARK. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are some minor inconsistencies in the Bibliography in terms of whether you use a full stop or comma before presenting the ISBNs added
  • is there an ISSN that could be provided for the International History Review? added
  • some ISBNs have hyphens and some don't added
  • in the Bibliography, Duffy isn't specifically cited, so should probably be in the Further reading section added
  • in the Bibliography, "Peter H. Wilson" --> "Wilson, Peter H added
  • in the Bibliography, "Redman, Redman, J." --> Redman, Herbert J. added
  • the Reichel work should be added to the Bibliography, I think it's a pamphlet, no oclc or isbn so I took it out.
  • this sentence seems a little awkward: "As summer ended, a combined French and Reichsarmee, or Imperial army, commanded by Prince Soubise and Prince Joseph of Saxe-Hildburghausen approaching from the west." fixed
  • there is some inconsistency in presentation "Allied" v. "allied" fixed
  • there is some date format inconsistency, e.g. compare "3 November" and "November 4" fixed
  • "eleven a.m." --> "11:00 am" fixed
  • in the aftermath, this sentence is repeated: "The Prussians also captured eight French generals and 260 officers" fixed
  • Looks good, Ruth, just a couple of minor points to follow up (please see above). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support generally a fine article. I made some edits for prose and clarity. Otherwise just a few minor comments, mainly for potential readers who are not familiar with the period:

  • "a contingent of the Habsburg Monarchy": since you use Austria throughout, I would use it here as well, or somehow make explicit that Habsburgs=Austria. adjusted lead, box, etc.
  • "could fire at least four volleys a minute": perhaps indicate that we this is about musket fire? done
  • "his army could march for miles at a time": precisely how many in how much time? Most armies in history could march "miles at a time". fixed
  • "1500 mixed troops": what does "mixed" mean here? added note
  • "The French and Habsburg Imperial (Reichsarmee)", "Three regiments of Franconian Imperial troops": the "Habsburg troops" or "Austrian troops" are not the same as the "Imperial Army" provided by the HRE, but the two are being used somewhat interchangeably in the text. Perhaps naming them "Austrian troops" (Habsburg-raised), "Imperial" or "Imperial German" troops (Reichsarmee), and "Habsburg troops" for them combined (since their commanders were usually Habsburg-appointed and acted under the nominal authority of the Emperor)? Well, there were 3 armies of note here. One was French. one was Imperial. They were beaten at Rossbach. Before that, though, they were trying to unite with the Habsburg army near Breslau. I think I fixed it.
  • "he counted 1,000 dead": who counted? Bodart. Fixed.
  • "general Adam Philippe, Comte de Custine) Comte de Doyat;": is the Comte de Doyat one of the fallen generals or a secondary title of Philippe-Joseph, Comte de Custine? fixed!
  • "disorganized by persistent pillaging": did the pillaging produce disorganization, or the other way round? the source did not say.
  • "Frederick's Uncle George": I would suggest simply mentioning him as "Frederick's uncle, King George II of Great Britain", since neither he nor the sobriquet are elsewhere mentioned. added relationships earlier

Once these are taken care of I will be happy to support. Constantine ✍ 17:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC) @Cplakidas:, thank you for your edits, and I've adjusted per your comments! auntieruth (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift response. I've fixed the first reference to George II. I am still unsure about who the Comte de Doyat was. If you mean "Philippe-Joseph, Comte de Custine, Comte de Doyat", then write it so before the parentheses. Likewise with the the Comte de Revel and the Comte de Durfort: are they distinct persons (in which case it should be "the Comte", or the titles of the preceding persons (respectively the Vicomte de Lafayette and Guy Nicolas de Durfort de Lorges). I have edited this yesterday, but I am not sure I got it right. Constantine ✍ 08:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas:, thanks for persistence. I had tried making it clearer, but obviously didn't succeed. Now I've added "the" and put a semi-colon between the names. That should work. auntieruth (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, now it is fine. Happy to support. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a comprehensive and very well written and illustrated article. I'm happy to support its promotion to A-class, and have only a single minor suggestion ahead of the FAC:

  • "The Prussians halted in two lines behind the screening ridge, and waited patiently" - were the soldiers really relaxed? It seems unlikely that they would have been patient in these circumstances. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nick-D probably they weren't, although that's what the source said. More likely they waited tolerantly; they were used to Seydlitz's ways. I've removed the word.auntieruth (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2017 (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 Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

15th Tank Corps (Soviet Union)[edit]

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

15th Tank Corps (Soviet Union) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article covers a Soviet tank corps that was formed twice. Its first formation, formed in 1938, fought in the Soviet invasion of Poland and was disbanded shortly afterwards. Its second formation was formed in 1942 and fought on the Eastern Front for more than a year before becoming an elite Guards unit. The article recently passed a GA review, and I would like to improve it further as part of my goal of increasing the number of A-class and FA articles about Soviet military history. Kges1901 (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Bt7_3.jpg: which of the Russian rationales applies here?
  • Rationale #3
  • File:Vasily_Koptsov.jpg needs a better FUR and more info on its original publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On this, going off of these rules, if the photographer is unknown: "But the Berne Convention says that photographs are in the public domain 50 years after publication if the photographer is unknown. This applies unless a country has made a specific law." The photographer in this instance, according to the tagging, is unknown. Can you lookup if Russia has any laws on unknown photographers and copyright? We could then use it as a free image. Otherwise, we will probably have to reduce the resolution of it, since it is a non-free image. Kees08 (Talk) 19:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kees08: Anonymous works are copyrighted until 70 years after publication. Assuming that the photo was published before 1943, it would be PD now. The problem is that I can never find definite proof of the photo being published before 1943. Kges1901 (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest adding a list of commanders to the body of the article, including (if possible), the years of their command
  • in the lead, "and the promotion of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Lozovsky..." --> explain very briefly who Lozovsky was
  • link BA-I here: "and 30 BA armored cars"
  • "Lawrence, KS, USA": spell out the abbreviation "KS" and remove "USA" for consistency
  • I suggest putting the citations into columns to reduce the amount of whitespace
  • Tried to using {{reflist|30em}} but display appearance has not changed. Kges1901 (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • if possible, an image in the infobox would help improve the visual appeal of the article
  • I was unable to find a relevant image on the internet. Kges1901 (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • inconsistent date format, compare "29 December 2016" with "2016-12-27"
  • Citations 26 & 27 should also have accessdate/retrieved dates
  • "During its first formation, it helped take the city of Grodno, Augustów Forest, and finished its formation at Wilno and Soleczniki...." --> "During its first formation, it helped take the city of Grodno, Augustów Forest, and finished its service at Wilno and Soleczniki"?
  • "of up to 3,000 Polish officers, gendarmerie forces, and volunteers..." --> "of up to 3,000 Polish officers, gendarmes, and volunteers
  • "...the other corps of the army..." --> by "army" do you mean the 3rd Guards Tank Army? If so, it is probably best just to say this.

@Kges1901: Any progress? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing review: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • link "chief of staff"
  • suggest splitting the paragraph starting "The corps fought in the Soviet invasion of Poland in September 1939", as it is quite long
  • spell out the abbreviation "NCO"
  • "Rossosh-Alexandrovka-Rovenki highway": the hyphens should be endashes
  • quite a few sentences begin "The corps..." (at least 21 that I could count), is it possible to try to vary this a little more?
  • Adressed all completely except the last, for which I changed a number of sentences. Kges1901 (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga[edit]

Good see the Russian military articles every now and then. Good work Kges, here are my comments.

  • Lead and infobox
    • During its first formation, it helped take "to takeover" the city of Grodno, Augustów Forest; Also the sentence ends in vague, mention who did it help and from whom is the city recaptured.
  • Done
    • The corps was formed a "for the" second time, link Major General
  • Done
    • Surrounded during the Third Battle of Kharkov; by whom?
  • Done
    • change 1938–40 (1st formation) and 1942–43 (2nd formation) in the infobox to 1938–1940 (1st formation) and 1942–1943 (2nd formation) respectively, per MOS:DATERANGE
  • Done
  • Section 1;
    • Mention the modern equivalent for Komdiv in braces.
  • Done
    • Replace "the former" with "formerly" in every case
  • Done
  • After reading MOS:TIME, I think that 24 hour is acceptable, with the added colon in the middle. Kges1901 (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some time later -> Later; cut-off "Some time", "Later" says it all
    • By 1900 -> By 7:00 pm, per MOS:TIME
    • Mention the full name of "Major Chuvakin" on the first instant
  • Added his initials, which are all that I could find Kges1901 (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Section 2; (sub-sections included)
    • On the first day, 14 January; both are redundant to each other, perhaps the former is better
    • use conversion template for 20-kilometer
  • Done
    • Pavel Rybalko; mention the rank
  • Done
    • use conversion template for 25 kilometers
  • Done
    • rank of Filipp Golikov
  • Done
    • In section 2.3, use the acronym of "1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler"
  • Done
    • promoted to Major General on 7 June -> later major general; the dates of promotion are out of context
  • Done
    • Maintain consistency between numbers or wording numbers, for example; 209 tanks and sixteen self-propelled guns
  • Made (or at least most) consistent using AP Stylebook which recommended spelling out 0-9 and then using numerals for higher numbers.
  • Section 3;
    • (promoted to Major General 7 June); out of context
  • Done, added year
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as all my comments are addressed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "During its first formation, it and other Red Army units captured the city" - would "During its first formation, it participated in the capture of the city" read better? (would avoid repetition of Red Army, and might read more naturally)
  • Done
  • "and fought in the Rzhev-Sychevka Offensive, Third Battle of Kharkov," > "the Third Battle..."
  • Done
  • "resulting in the death of Koptsov and the promotion of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Lozovsky, its chief of staff. " - the word "promotion" is ambiguous, and the main text doesn't reinforce it, only noting he was made the acting commander of the unit.
  • "The corps was formed in 1938 from the 5th Mechanized Corps as the 15th Tank Corps, with the honorific "named for (Konstantin) Kalinovsky", who was a Soviet military theorist." - read rather oddly to me. Is it saying that it was formed in 1938 as the "named for (Konstantin) Kalinovsky 15th Tank Corps"? Or the "Kalinovsky 15th Tank Corps"? (I'm a bit confused)
  • Literal Russian word order would be "15th Tank Corps named for Kalinovsky", although the phrase "имени" could also be translated as "in the name of" Kges1901 (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the corps included the 2nd Light Tank Brigade (formerly 5th Mechanized Brigade)" - unclear what the "formerly" means in this context. Could it become a footnote, with some sort of explanation? (it would read more easily)
  • I meant for it to say that it was previously known as the 5th Mechanized Brigade. Kges1901 (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with headquarters in Borisov" > "with its headquarters in Borisov"?
  • Done
  • "By the end of the day motorcycle units" > "By the end of the day, motorcycle units"?
  • Done
  • "a large number of small arms, a mortar, and an anti-aircraft gun" - worth linking these
  • Done
  • "On 10 October, corps headquarters and the tank brigades were stationed at Wilno" > "the corps headquarters"
  • Done
  • "included 150 tanks, broken down as follows:" - when I first read this, I assumed "broken down" related to the tanks; any alternative language options?
  • Switched the sentence around.
  • "On the same day, the 105th Brigade became a separate unit and soon transferred to the 5th Tank Army." - "was soon" would keep the tense consistent
  • Done
  • "The 88th Tank Brigade joined the corps on 30 October,[10] and in December the 52nd Motor Rifle Brigade became part of the corps. " - any way of avoiding repeating 'the corps'?
  • Rephrased
  • "The 15th rested and refitted for the next several months" - refitted as what? (similarly when refitting is mentioned later on)
  • Explained the apparent jargon at first mention
  • "German troops from the 4th Panzer Army counterattacked the Southwestern Front's exploiting forces " - an "exploiting force" I know, but the reader may not...
  • Rephrased, does it work now?
  • "The corps fought in the Ostrogozhsk–Rossosh Offensive from 14 January," - when introducing a new section, I'd expect to see the year defined in the date, e.g. "14 January 1942"
  • Done
  • "before dying of the severe wound" - you don't need to repeat "severe" here (its clear from the sequence of the paragraph)
  • Done
  • " 16 self-propelled guns" - worth linking
  • Done
  • "On 26 July 1943, the corps was converted into the 7th Guards Tank Corps[11] along with the other corps of the 3rd Guards Tank Army, becoming part of the elite Soviet Guards, for its actions in the offensive." - could this be a final paragraph? Would make it easier for the reader to spot what finally happened to the corps. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done for the last suggestion, but now it is abnormally short since the new paragraph is only a sentence (albeit long). Kges1901 (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, happy to support. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Why is the article not simply 15th Tank Corps? I don't know if there are any other claimants to the primary location here.
  • Moved. Initially I had the disambig attached because of the UK Tank Corps and the AEF Tank Corps, however I realized that only the Soviet Union had numbered tank corps. Kges1901 (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...ended with only 200 tanks remaining in the army." - there's no context for this figure, can you add something like "out of 'X number' assigned." or something similar?
  • Done, found additional information in Forczyk Kges1901 (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The corps fought in the Ostrogozhsk–Rossosh Offensive from 14 January 1942..." - should this be 1943?
  • The link goes to the right unit, and in Feb 43 the corps was called just the SS Panzer Corps, as according to its article it didn't become II SS Panzer Corps until June 1943. Kges1901 (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...fighting in heavy street fighting..." - this is a little redundant, can we replace one of the "fighting"s?
  • What makes warheros.ru a reliable source?
  • The sources for the Warheroes.ru biographies referenced in the article are the Soviet-era biographical dictionaries listed at the bottom of each page. Kges1901 (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's good enough - several years ago, several of us advanced the same argument in favor of navweaps.com, and the consensus at WP:RSN was that if those references support the material on a self-published site, we ought to just use those references directly. Parsecboy (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with removing warheroes is that now the information isn't really verifiable because these books cited on warheroes would be even harder for English Wikipedia users to obtain than the battleship reference books cited by navweaps. Kges1901 (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the thread I'm referencing - in it, somebody made basically the same argument (actually with regard to Russian language sources) and it was discounted. Granted, that was 7 years ago, but I don't know that the policy on self-published sources has changed in that time. Parsecboy (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kges1901: - is there any way warheros.ru and tankfront.ru can be replaced? I don't think we can promote an article that includes self-published sources. Parsecboy (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on replacing the websites with references to the sources they used. Kges1901 (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information on tankfront is from the following sources:
  • for the assignment of each unit on the first day of a month: Combat composition of the Soviet Army
  • Strength figures: sources listed next to the information on the page
  • transfers/formations: presumably, the relevant orders mentioned on each tankfront page
  • Anything else: sources listed on the bottom of the page or in the sitewide bibliography page Kges1901 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Parsecboy: I have replaced the warheroes links and started the process of removing tankfront. I was able to get two detailed 3rd Tank Army history books off the internet and will work on translating information from Russian starting tomorrow. The information in the two histories combined should be the same as what's on tankfront. Kges1901 (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Parsecboy: - I have replaced all of the tankfront links, expanded the lead, and added around 15k bytes of prose from information in Shein and Zvartsev's books. Kges1901 (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comments by Auntieruth

  • wow, Kges this is very interesting. I'm hoping that you will be able to replace those citations, because, well, you know of the discussion about reliable sources going on in the project right now, and although they may be fundamentally reliable, it's nearly impossible to tell. So good job for you. Also, linking back to the sources in another wiki article, if they aren't cited properly there, is problematic.
  • I'm wondering if you can add some qualifiers to explain that in its first formation, the unit fought the Poles in alliance with the Germans, and in its second, it fought the Germans??? (possibly in alliance with the Poles? IDK on that).
  • Added context on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. I think it is pretty clear that the 2nd formation was fighting Germans because of repeated mentions in the lead of them fighting Germans.Kges1901 (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • make sure that all your generals etc are linked in their first instance inthe body of the text not just in the lead. I'm not sure Koptsov is. Also, I have no sense of distance on these different maneuvers.
  • Linked Koptsov in the body, added some context on where various places are located in the lead. Kges1901 (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • as the Main Military Council had considered the tank corps' performance in Poland unsatisfactory....because instead of as. "As" implies that it happened concurrently, as I went here, you went there. Because implies one then the other.
  • is the Vytebet a river? a mountain range? if it's a river, we need a link at least to a stub. Also, Ozhigovo? city? I do this with the German towns. It's all so familiar to me I forget that others don't have the map of Prussia, or Bavaria, or where ever in their heads.
  • Created a stub on the river, explained that Ozhigovo is a village. Kges1901 (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the first formation needs to be preceded by a brief explanation of the treaty. The second formation needs a couple of sentences clarifying that the enemy was now Germany, and why. We cannot assume your readers will know this, especially if they come upon the article at random. auntieruth (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, we're good. I added a phrase, and added an "s" to German(s). auntieruth (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support Some comments by EyeTruth[edit]

  •  Resolved The corps was formed in 1938 from the 5th Mechanized Corps as the 15th Tank Corps at Naro-Fominsk in the Moscow Military District, with the honorific "named for (Konstantin) Kalinovsky" — Is it the 5th Mechanized Corps or the 15th Tank Corps or both that were named after Kalinovsky? Currently it reads as if it was the 15 TC that was given the honorific.
  • Both were named after Kalinovsky, rephrased. Kges1901 (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Pending During the battle, the corps reportedly killed 320 officers, 20 non-commissioned officers, and 194 soldiers, many of whom were crushed by tanks in the eastern part of the city. — These are very precise figures, so they almost certainly came from sources close to the event (combat reports? operational summaries?). If these figures of killed and wounded are not coming from the Polish side, then it’s beneficial to clarify that (consider the struck-out “reportedly”). This also applies to the other instances of WIA and KIA for Polish and German units throughout the article. (Reliable POW figures typically come from the captor’s documents that were created for internal use, so no need to clarify those). EyeTruth (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The figures are most likely Soviet combat reports, as implied in Magnuski & Kolomiets. Kges1901 (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is probably useful to make that distinction, unless the origin is not known with complete certainty. I believe the origin of those figures can be precisely determined from the archival sources that Magnuski & Kolomiets cites. EyeTruth (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the German casualty numbers, I think I've made the origin clear by saying that the corps reported the figures, as that implies a combat report. Kges1901 (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed. If you can't determine with certainty where the above Polish casualty figures came from, then not much else can be done for now (although my bet is strongly on Soviet combat reports). I noticed the majority of casualty figures in the article are properly attributed. EyeTruth (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Magnuski and Kolomiets don't inline cite the documents they used specifically, so there's no way of knowing since Meltyukhov doesn't have as much detail on casualties.Kges1901 (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Resolved The delays in the advance caused the armor to move behind the infantry — Move behind or lag behind?
  • Fixed, it should have been lag behind. Kges1901 (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Resolved After marching 15 kilometers (9.3 mi) — Advancing is more suitable. Tank units typically don’t march.
  • Clarified with more details, IMO advancing implies combat, but this was more a relocation to another sector. Kges1901 (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Resolved On the night of 29 to 30 August, the corps was pulled out of the line and concentrated in the forest a kilometer south of Meshalkino in order to carry out an attack on Sorokino planned for that morning in conjunction with the 154th Rifle Division and 12th Tank Corps. The attack was cancelled due to the heavy losses suffered by both the 12th Tank Corps and 154th Rifle Division, and the 15th also required time to reorganize. — This is a bit confusing. The three units were to attack together, so how did two of them suffer heavy losses before the attack occurred? Was the attack carried out in piecemeal or were they preempted by the Germans? Some clarification may be needed. EyeTruth (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarified that the losses were from the previous fighting. I already explained that it was cancelled due to said heavy losses. Kges1901 (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments – Sources

  • It is the archived website of Yevgeny Drig, a Russian historian who wrote a book on the Red Army mechanized corps, published by Transkniga in 2005. Steven Zaloga described his book as the "essential history" of the subject from the Soviet perspective, and David Glantz uses the book as the main source for information on mechanized corps including in Barbarossa Derailed. I can't directly cite the book because Drig didn't research the mechanized corps predecessors (the 1930s tank and mechanized corps) in detail until after he published the book. Kges1901 (talk) 08:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide that context in the Sources section in a very succinct way? You can look to the Sources section of the Battle of Kursk article, or some other GA or FA out there, for examples of how you may be able to do this. EyeTruth (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provided context, and converted those refs to sfns. Kges1901 (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You probably want to keep it focused on the cited source and less on the author's other work, unless that work is directly connected to the cited source (which currently isn't clear). Also consider adding the author's Cyrillic name in addition to the English transcription. His transcribed name turns up nothing on the net (and indeed is rendered in different ways), but at least Cyrilic does. EyeTruth (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased and added the Russian name. Kges1901 (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Better than before. But the source is still very vulnerable to an RS-challenge. (I hope you don't mind that I indented your reply). EyeTruth (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that it is, actually - Drig is a published expert in the field, so he passes the WP:SPS bar. Parsecboy (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen such an argument get crushed at the RS Noticeboard; it was over genetics. The WP policy WP:SPS implores extra caution when citing personal websites irrespective of the credibility of the author. But I frankly don't expect this case to ever be an issue. EyeTruth (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'd argue that those individuals don't understand the policy ;) Parsecboy (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checked back and it was a little different matter, sources versus other sources, and it got big but never actually went to RS. Need to correct that memory. EyeTruth (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Resolved Are you aware that Mikhail Meltyukhov's Soviet-Polish Wars: Military and Political Confrontation in 1918-1939 has recieved some very serious critism for seemingly being biased against Poland while underplaying Soviet aggression and war crimes? E.g. this brief critisim in page 18 of this paper by a fellow Russian historian, and a more extensive one in this paper by the Polish historian Andrzej Nowak.
  • I am aware of that and I previously talked to Piotrus, who was involved in the discussion on the talkpage of the Meltyukhov article back then, and he said that Meltyukhov could be used as long as it was something that wasn't a controversial claim, essentially (not an exact quote - you can find the original conversation in Piotrus' talkpage archives). I also used it because this was before I found Magnuski and Kolomiets, who basically had the same information because they probably worked from the same archive files. Kges1901 (talk) 08:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that Meltyukhov is an expert in Soviet military history, but given that he has been criticized by multiple historians, including fellow Russian historians, for lacing his 2001-work, Soviet-Polish Wars: Military and Political Confrontation in 1918-1939, with serious anti-Polish bias (which unfortunately is not yet an uncommon thing in Russian literature on Polish history), one has to be cautious about how his 2001-work is used as a reference for Soviet actions in Poland. I haven’t look into the specific contents that it was cited for in the article though. EyeTruth (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The events I've used Meltyukhov for aren't really things that IMO could have an anti-Polish bias, like when the corps reached certain areas. Most of this information was in Magnuski & Kolomiets, but some of it wasn't, which I thinks is because of author decisions on what material to include from the archives. Incidentally, because you've previously created a Prokhorovka map, would it be possible for you to create a map of the Kozelsk offensive? I feel that the section is almost a wall of text and needs a map to explain further what was going on. If you agree I will send you an image of a Russian map with translations of words on the map attached. Kges1901 (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the lines that Meltyukhov was cited for, and none of them seem contentious. All good. As for help with a map, it can take quite some time and a lot of determination not to get bored and give up, especially if I'm not already very conversant with the many tiny units jumping all over the place. I've taken note and will let you know when I get the chance. EyeTruth (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. As long as we don't use his work for propaganda claims (lies) about stuff like treatment of prisoners or minorities or other such topics involving value judgements, it should be fine. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Resolved I did a quick check of all in-text citations that cited Glantz. Found one with an issue: "During the fighting, the corps reported 650 German soldiers killed at a cost of 350 killed and wounded." — This is not supported by the content in the specific page cited. EyeTruth (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, it was actually from Maslov, who has pretty much all the casualty data information (probably from the archives). Kges1901 (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may be beneficial to do a quick check for other citations when you get the chance. EyeTruth (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Pending People's Commissariat for Defense Directive 724486 (Stamped "Secret"), 9 May 1942 — This is a primary source that will be very difficult to access unless through a secondary source. Can't you find a secondary source to cover this? There is also another, TsAMO. EyeTruth (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The TsAMO ref is to a document cited on tankfront, but no other secondary sources seem to have cared about the corps' strength on that day. The full text of the NKO order is also apparently not online, although it is referred to in some secondary sources, but not with the detail about the Moscow Armored Training Center. Kges1901 (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If these archival documents have not been published or are not widely available, it will be hard to say that they satisfy WP:V. These primary sources are nothing like Directive No. 21 in popularity/availability. EyeTruth (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should I make the article less detailed in order to satisfy verifiability, or is that too much of a trade? Kges1901 (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would like to see those details stay in the article. But it's ultimately your call. In any case, I'm fully supporting if the consensus is to excuse them (although that's not very likely). EyeTruth (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider implementing a consistent citation format, in both wiki markup and rendered text; at least, with the rendered text. A few in-text citations do not link to a full description in the sources section (e.g. Drig, Yevgeny). See the WP content guideline WP:CITEVAR. EyeTruth (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I noticed that the above will be resolved once the issue of primary sources is resolved. However, in the mean time you can consider coverting the primary sources to sfn markup using {{sfnRef|}}. See Operation Barbarossa if you need examples. EyeTruth (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: A few of the sources still have issues (see above). I support if the consensus is that those issues are insufficient to prevent promotion. This is a well-written, well-researched article. The content and sourcing, in general, are solid. Well, done. EyeTruth (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Co-ordinator comment: I'm closing this review now as it has been open for much longer than usual and the article seems to have more than sufficient support for promotion. Any further discussion / development can continue on the article talk page. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2017 (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 AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

HMS Benbow (1913)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

HMS Benbow (1913) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Figured I ought to join the British battleship fun Sturmvogel has been having lately. This ship was one of the Royal Navy's most powerful ships at the outbreak of World War I, though like the rest of the Grand Fleet, she didn't see much action, even at Jutland. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Iazyges[edit]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

Comments by Llammakey[edit]

  • I suggest linking pre-dreadnought and mines.
    • Done
  • Battlecruiser and light cruiser should be linked earlier at first mention.
    • Both done
  • fleet should be capitalized in Mediterranean fleet at first mention.
    • Fixed
  • Suggest rewording of final sentence, such as "sold for scrap in January 1931 and broken up in March 1931..." to avoid repetition of the word scrap.
  • In the section "Later operations", the turret names need their "".Llammakey (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Vami_IV[edit]

  • I have only one suggestion to make and that is to implement Template:sfn for citation of books and/or journals. Reason being is that it creates a link from the citation to the work cited, for the convenience of the reader. –Vami_IV✠ 14:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't generally use the sfn template unless it's already in the article, or I'm going to be copying citations from an article that uses it - if someone else wants to make the change, I'm not opposed to it, but I don't think it's really worth the effort to switch 60 or so footnotes manually. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Anotherclown[edit]

  • All tool checks ok, Earwig reveals no issues with close paraphrase or copyviolations [40] (no action req'd).
  • Images all appear to be PD and have the req'd information / tags. Captions look ok to me.
  • "...in support of Beatty's Battlecruiser Fleet..." Who is Beatty?
    • Good catch
  • "...Jellicoe had intended to use the Harwich Force to sweep..." Who is Jellicoe?
    • Fixed
  • "...credit for the hits cannot be given..." perhaps "could not" instead of "cannot" (tense).
    • Good idea
  • I made some edits to *hopefully) correct I few things, pls check and amend where necessary [41].
    • All of your changes look good to me.
  • "Marder, p. 424" appears as a shortcite but there is no corresponding work in the references that I could see.
    • Ha - I went to copy the citation over from HMS Marlborough and that article had the same problem!
  • Otherwise this looks very good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2017 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Yugoslav torpedo boat T5[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Yugoslav torpedo boat T5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Built in 1914–1915, this ship served in the Austro-Hungarian navy during WWI, and was then transferred to the fledgling Navy of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Kingdom of Yugoslavia) in 1921. She was captured by the Italians in April 1941 during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia, and then saw service with them. Handed back to the Yugoslavs in 1943, she saw out the rest of the war, and then went on with the post-war Yugoslav Navy until 1962. This article went through GAN a couple of months ago and is one of eight articles on this class of torpedo boat that saw service with Yugoslavia, two of which have already gone through ACR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • I spy one duplicate link for Durrazo.
  • Same comment about context on the Szent Istvan sinking as T3.
  • Ditto for scout/light cruiser description for the Saidas
  • Ditto again for links in the ref section.
  • Link displacement, propeller, drifter
  • All these done.
  • Hadn't thought of this for the other review, but were any of these boats involved in the Cattaro mutiny in any way? The Halpern article cited in SMS Novara (1913) mentions that 14 of the 250-ton boats were in Cattaro at the time, but does not state which boats were present.
  • Per that review, the torpedo boats were not seriously affected by the mutiny, Bell & Elleman also don't give the designations of any torpedo boats involved.
  • Wouldn't Zadar have been Zara at the time?
  • Good catch, fixed.
  • Nothing on what the vessel did in 1944 and 1945? Parsecboy (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the navy in exile was based on Malta, so I suspect it was based there, but it probably wasn't up to much given its age. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, on that and the mutiny points - worth a look, I guess. Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • All tool checks ok (i.e. no dabs, external links work, no citation errors, no duplicate links, Earwig tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrase [42]).
    • Image licencing, caption and alt text look fine.
    • I made a couple of minor edits [43], otherwise I couldn't see any issues after reading through it. Anotherclown (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, not a lot stood out to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "built in 1914–15, she..." --> probably should be 1914–1915 per WP:DATERANGE
  • inconsistent: "330 tonnes (320 long tons) fully loaded" (body) v. "330 t (325 long tons) (full load)" (infobox)
  • "and this contributed to ongoing problems with them", probably could just be "and this contributed to ongoing problems"
  • I wonder if potentially the "ongoing problems" could be clarified more?
  • do you know if the name Cer was chosen to commemorate the Battle of Cer? If so, and if there is a ref, perhaps this could be mentioned?
Thanks Rupert. All done, except there is no more info on the ongoing problems. I think the implication is that they didn't have much of an idea about turbines at the start. So far as Cer is concerned, I think it is more likely that it was named after the mountain of that name, but it is possible it was the battle (which happened near the mountain). I haven't seen a source that says either though. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, nice work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2017 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Vultee Vengeance in Australian service[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Vultee Vengeance in Australian service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Vultee Vengeance is one of the Royal Australian Air Force's most notorious lemons. Ordered during a crisis period in early 1942, the aircraft did not arrive in significant numbers until 1943 and first entered combat late that year. A large deployment of the type to New Guinea in early 1944 proved short-lived and embarrassing to the RAAF, as despite a competent performance by their crews the Vengeances were ordered back to Australia after only six weeks to create room at forward airfields for more capable types. Small numbers of the dive bombers soldiered on in secondary and support roles until 1946, and a handful of air frames were provided to the Royal Australian Navy for ground training. As part of its analysis of the type's service the RAAF's Air Power Development Centre noted that the Vengeance provides a good case study in why equipment purchases need to be well considered.

This article passed a GA nomination in April, and has since been expanded and improved. I'm hopeful that it now meets the A-class criteria. I'm also considering further developing the article for a FAC, and would appreciate any comments on how it could be improved. Thanks in advance for all comments. Nick-D (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Peacemaker67 I reviewed this article thoroughly at GAN and have reviewed the changes since then (including the additional image and its licensing), and consider it meets the A-Class criteria. I made a few minor typo fixes. Just make sure I haven't changed the intent or introduced errors. As far as FAC is concerned, I would try to tease out the whole development of thinking on the efficacy of dive-bombing. It is still a bit counter-intuitive, in that it seems that it was used with some success as a dive bomber, yet was dispensed with. Given the success of the Dauntless, perhaps the design/alternative aircraft and employment techniques played greater parts in its demise? I'm just guessing here, but it seems to be an area which would bear more discussion in this article given it was the only Australian dive-bomber. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I'll see what I can do with finding sources on that topic - it seems like it was a combination of the Allied air forces believing that dedicated dive bombers were a bad idea due to problems with the tactic and the superiority of other approaches (rockets, level bombing, use of fighter-bombers etc) and the dubious quality of the Vengeance compared to other aircraft available to the RAAF. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's the sort of thing I mean. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • All tool checks ok, Earwig tool reveals no issues with close paraphrase or copyviolation [44].
    • Images all appear to be PD and have the req'd information. Captions also look ok to me.
    • I couldn't find any major issues after reading through it. Seems like a solid summary of the topic to me. Anotherclown (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- tks for this article, Nick, a great addition to the "in Australian service" series...

  • Copyedited as usual so pls let me know any concerns.
  • Having touched on the history of the type's service while creating or improving articles on No. 77 Wing and No. 10 Group (1TAF), I think this is comprehensive and don't recall seeing anything much on comparisons with other aircraft, but I agree with PM it would be useful to add something if it can be sourced.
  • Sources reliable and formatting looks okay.
  • I'll take as read AC's image check.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2017 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

SMS Weissenburg[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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

Toolbox

Another old German battleship, I started tinkering with this article all the way back in 2007. Nearly ten years later, it's finally in shape to head to ACR (and hopefully FAC), after having been rewritten and expanded with newer sources. This was one of two German battleships sold to the Ottoman Empire in 1910, where it had a much livelier career, though not a much more successful one (she was also the longest-surviving German capital ship, being some 67 years between keel-laying and final scrapping). Thanks to those who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support with minor comments

  • "battleship C" - minor, but on many screens it is very hard to see the italic C - I first read this as saying the name was "battleship C", not "C". Any chance the article could put speech marks around the C?
    • Good idea
  • "Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert; Steinmetz, Hans-Otto (1993). Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe (Volume 5). Ratingen: Mundus Verlag. ISBN 3-7822-0456-5", but "Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert; Steinmetz, Hans-Otto (1993). Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe (Volume 8) [The German Warships] (in German). Ratingen: Mundus Verlag. ASIN B003VHSRKE." - isn't the first Hildebrand volume in German as well? Hchc2009 (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is what happens when you copy refs from different articles, where one was fixed and the other wasn't, and you aren't paying attention ;) Thanks Hchc. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support also with minor comments

  • in the lead, the double reference to Turgut Reis is jarring...How about ... In 1910, Weissenburg was sold to the Ottoman Empire and renamed Turgut Reis, after for the famous 16th century Turkish admiral, Turgut Reis? or something like that....
    • How about piping the link to Turgut Reis to "Turkish admiral"? I'd like to keep the bolded name
  • You switch the reference around to Barbaros Hayreddin and Turgut Reis, and previously you've named Turgut Reis first
    • Fixed
  • A year later, on 29 September 1911, when Italy declared war on the Ottoman Empire. ....?
    • Probably something I rewrote a few too many times - removed the "when".
made some tweaks here auntieruth (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ruth. Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Llammakey[edit]

  • conversions - cm is abbreviated by the inches are not in the guns section - they are in adjectival form, should be hyphenated or abbreviated
    • Fixed
  • The torpedo tubes measurement needs a conversion
    • Added
  • Displacement, draft, knots, barbette, magainze, Wilhelmshaven, Wilhelm II, decommissioned, Allies, should be linked in the text
    • Done
  • maybe include Wilhelm's title at first mention so later in text, when you say the Kaiser, they know you're talking about this guy.
    • Good idea
  • in the section 1901-1910, Brandenburg class battleships needs to be hyphenated
    • Good catch
  • "The Ottoman navy..." - navy should be capitalized, suggest also removing the definite article before ship name, but not fussy about it
    • Both done
  • Is Nargara and Nagara Point the same place? (Italo-Turkish War section)
    • Yeah - removed the "Point" from the one instance
  • Not sure if the cruiser Mediciye is the same as the later Mecidiye - spelling is nearly the same and would remove a red link
    • Yeah, that's a typo.
  • Suggest converting the 1,500 meters in the "Subsequent operations" section
    • Done
  • Naval mines is overlinked in WWI section Llammakey (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, looks good to me, I just have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead World War I is overlinked
    • Fixed, plus a few other duplicate links
  • in the lead "1904–05" should be "1904–1905"
    • Fixed
  • in the lead "with the Greek Navy — the Battle of Elli in December 1912" should have an unspaced emdash or a spaced endash
    • Good catch
  • there are a few other duplicate links: protected cruiser, Ottoman cruiser Hamidiye, SMS Goeben, Dardanelles, and Reichsmarineamt
    • Fixed as per above
  • I added a translation to "File:Map of the First Balkan War.png" to clarify its source, not sure if I got it right, though
    • I asked the original uploader, who is still active on Commons. As an aside, you edited via IP on Commons - don't know if it's a big deal to you but if so you might want to get that oversighted.
  • "File:SMS Weissenburg NH 88653.jpg": needs a US licence tag
    • Added
  • "millimetres" --> "millimeters"?

Source review -- refs all look prima facie reliable, no formatting concerns. I also did an image review before I realised Rupert had probably gone through each one, so they should be cool... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2017 (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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Crusades[edit]

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk)

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

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is currently down as C-Class but during 2016 went through significant change and in my view some improvement. Probably needs a new set of eyes to look it over if it is to improve further. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • To start off: pinging Dbachmann, who's done a lot of editing on this article this month, and Rjensen, who has also done some recent editing. I just want to make sure that this is a good time for an A-class review for this article. - Dank (push to talk) 00:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dank:—Hi Dank, nearly five months in and the article now has 3 supports and no objections. Is there anything else needed from your prospective? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I won't have a chance to get to this one. - Dank (push to talk) 11:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Thanks for your efforts on this article. Unfortunately, I'm not qualified to judge the content on this one, sorry, so I just looked at minor issues. I made some tweaks and have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ninth Crusade is overlinked in the Terminology section;
Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • other examples of overlinked terms are: Anatolia, County of Edessa, Principality of Antioch, Kingdom of Jerusalem, County of Tripoli, Iberian Peninsula, Reconquista...(I stopped halfway down the article, but there are more than just these; if you install this script it will help identify where the duplicate links are);
Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the second part of the first paragraph in the Military orders section appears to be unreferenced;

Green tickY— redrafted and sourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • same as with the last part of the second and third paragraphs of the same section;

Green tickY— redrafted and sourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • the first couple of paragraphs in the Northern Crusades section appears to be uncited;
Green tickY— added cite to Davies which just about covers everything 17:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • the last part of the Albigensian Crusade paragraph needs a reference;
Green tickY— removed irrelevent content Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Aftermath, this sentence appears uncited: "The Crusade of Varna was another attempt to move against the Ottomans";
Green tickY— Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Aftermath, the paragraph beginning "Polish-Hungarian King Władysław Warneńczyk invaded..." appears to be uncited;
Green tickY— removed the uncited text, too much detail Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • for A-class, the citations should be consistent, but currently there appear to be a few different styles. For example, compare "Tuchman 561" (Ref 159) with "Lock 2006, pp. 187–188" (Ref 157). Likewise, Ref 152 uses a different style also;
I have started on moving all the citations to Harvard—will complete next week Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY— All now converted to Harvard Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Regional remains of the order was merged with the Knights Hospitallers and other military orders" --> "Regional remnants of the order were merged with the Knights Hospitallers and other military orders"?
Green tickY— removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • are there publisher and ISBN details for the Rose book?
Green tickY— added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • same as above for the Cohn book?
Green tickY—added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • are there ISBNs or OCLC numbers for the Edington, Runciman, Cantor, Nicolle, Owen and Kolbaba books? These can be found usually at worldcat.org;
Green tickY—done 16:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • in the External links some of the listings use unspaced emdashes, but one uses a spaced endash. This should probably be made consistent. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—I've removed the entire section, most of the links were to redundant websites Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • G'day again, I've just noticed that this article also currently has a peer review open: Wikipedia:Peer review/Crusades/archive2. It's probably not a good idea to have two reviews open at once, so I would suggest requesting one of them to be closed. If you wish for the ACR to be closed, please let me know and I can unleash the bot. If you wish for the PR to be closed, I believe that the bot that does that is closed, but if you let me know I think I can do it manually. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks AustralianRupert — please close the PR, it has been dormant for months. I don't think anything further of note will come from it. Hoping the ACR gives greater feedback to move the article forward. Thx again 15:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

They say "no guts, no glory" so I'll give this mini-monster a try, though its size will dictate several bites to assure easy digestion.

  • The People's Crusade included the Rhineland massacres: the murder of thousands of Jews. Awkward, suggest moving the last clause to the middle of the sentence.
Green tickY—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Constantinople was sacked during the Fourth Crusade Needs some sort of transitional phrase to tie in with the previous sentence.
Green tickY—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weren't the Crusades responsible for the recovery of a lot of Greek and Roman works that had been translated into Arabic? Even if it took the Europeans a few more centuries to begin to absorb them during the Renaissance. And what about technology transfer?
    • Any progress on this?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems like this wasn't significant from what I can find. There was some, particularly translations from Antioch, but the major transfer happened in Spain, predominantly Toledo, and Muslim Sicily after the Norman conquest. I will add a line before I stop.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The map in the Eastern Mediterranean Background section needs a header to explain what it's covering.
  • Tried, but technical details with the legend stop it showing, how about this? 13:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • Link pontificate, papacy and Rome. In general, I think it's a good idea to link most places as geography literacy continues to decline.
Green tickY— Done 15:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • outbreak of European Antisemitism do not capitalize Antisemitism
Green tickY— Done 15:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • Philip I, king of France capitalize king anytime it's associated with a particular individual as it's a title of rank and thus a proper noun.
Green tickY— Done 15:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
Still some examples left.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • and Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor Awkward usage, more commonly seen as the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV,...
Green tickY— Done 15:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • There were campaigns by Fulk V of Anjou between 1120 and 1129, the Venetians in 1122–24, Conrad III of Germany in 1124 and the Knights Templar were established The connection between the Knights Templar and the rest of the sentence is not clear. Break it out into a separate sentence with a bit of exposition about the crusading orders.
Green tickY— Done 15:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • In 1187 Saladin united the enemies of the Crusader States, was victorious at the Battle of Hattin and retook Jerusalem This seems awkward to me, perhaps move the last phrase to the middle?
Green tickY— Done 15:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • Led by Conrad of Wittelsbach, Archbishop of Mainz comma after Mainz
Green tickY— Done
  • captured the cities of Sidon and Beirut but after Henry died, most of the crusaders returned to Germany move the middle clause to the end and rephrase.
Green tickY— Done 15:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)

Down to Crusader states, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Twice conquering Constantinople? That needs some explication.
Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Andrew II?
Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1240 but Richard of Cornwall arrived in Acre a few weeks later and completed the enforcement Comma after 1240. Enforcement of what?
Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Little reliable evidence survives but these events provided a salutary influence that hearts and minds could be engaged for the cause. Awkward.
  • Link the Livonian order and the Livonian Brothers of the Sword and Bremen
Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1225, Honorius III called the Hungarians to undertake the Bosnian Crusade that failed when the Hungarians retreated following defeat by the Mongols at the Battle of Mohi. Awkward, possibly split the sentence.
Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The papacy declared frequent Iberian crusades and from 1212 to 1265, and the Christian kingdoms drove the Muslims back to the Emirate of Granada, which held out until 1492 when the Muslims and Jews were expelled from the peninsula. This is misleading, the Muslims and Jews were not expelled until after the conquest of Granada in 1492.
Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chronology of the 2nd and 3rd paras in the Aftermath section is confused.
  • In 1536 Francis entered into one of the capitulations of the Ottoman Empire with Suleiman the Magnificent also making common cause with the Sultan's North African vassals including Hayreddin Barbarossa Awkward--Sturmvogel 66
Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 20:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hawkeye7[edit]

Working on an article like this one is a thankless task. People will probably say that the article is too big, but there is more material that I would like included. Disclaimer: my own ancestor fought in the First Crusade.

  • I would like to see more on the First Crusade, the key component of the article. I would like it expanded to name the key crusaders (Godfrey, Raymond, Tancred, Robert etc) and their forces (only Bohemond is currently mentioned). Also mention the emperor. I would like to mention the important battles fought and won.
  • Break up the Crusader states section; move the Latin Empire paragraph down into the Fourth Crusade and the rest under the First Crusade. Remove the duplication, and expand if you wish.
Green tickY— Done 15:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)

Quick comment[edit]

  • I will try to look at this in detail, but I have a couple of points. Setton is wrongly given at one point as Stetton, and should be linked as Kenneth Setton. Ref 106 is wrong. It is cited as Setton, but he was just the general editor of the multi-volume work. The author cited at ref 106 is shown here as Jean Richard. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY—Thanks Dudley. Linked to Setton and replaced Ref 106 with Runciman who appears to be the original source of the quote. 08:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "were peasants hoping for Apotheosis at Jerusalem, or forgiveness from God for all their sins." 1. This implies that only peasants were hoping for forgiveness for their sins, which is obviously wrong. 2. I am also doubtful about the capitalisation of "Apotheosis" and the link to Divinization (Christian). It seems more likely that Cohn was using the word in the ordinary dictionary sense of ascension to heaven.
  • "Different perspectives of the actions carried out, at least nominally, under Papal authority during the crusades have polarised historians." This sounds awkward.
  • The capitalisation of "crusades" is inconsistent. It is capitalised in "The Crusades were a series of religious wars" and when referring to numbered crusades such as "First Crusade", but not otherwise. Personally I would capitalise when referring to to the medieval religious wars, as in "The crusades had a profound impact on Western civilisation", but not when the word is used generally as in "The term "crusades" is also applied to other campaigns". Other editors may disagree.
  • The detail of the etymology of the word are excessive and not relevant to this article. Also the word "Etymology" should not be capitalised.
  • "Constable (2001) describes four different perspectives among scholars" "Constable (2001)" links to the bibliography, which is wrong. It should be shown as Giles Constable with a reference giving the page number(s).
  • "Popularists, Constable did not use this term,[11] limit the crusades". This is ungrammatical and confusing.
  • "resident Christians were given certain legal rights" presumably in Muslem lands generally, but this needs clarifying.
  • "Cultures and creeds coexisted and competed, but the frontier conditions became increasingly inhospitable to Catholic pilgrims" What frontier conditions and where?
  • " In this the papacy began to assert its independence from secular rulers, marshalling arguments for the proper use of armed force by Catholics." This is a non-sequitur, and the first part repeats what has been said above.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is likely he exaggerated the danger facing the Eastern Empire while making his appeal." As the Byzantines had recently lost almost all Anatolia to the Turks, this could do with clarification.
  • "the County of Tripoli (1104—Tripoli was not conquered until 1109—to 1289)" I do not understand this. The county was founded in 1104 but not conquered until 1109?
  • "In the Iberian Peninsula crusaders continued to make gains". The Reconquista has not previously been as a crusade. Also I do not think "Peninsula" should be capitalised.
  • Saleph River should be linked.
  • "became known as the Third Crusade" You have already said this.
  • "Within sight of Jerusalem supply shortages prevented assault and forced retreat." Is this correct? The version I read is that Richard thought his forces were too weak to hold Jerusalem.
  • Finance. This section seems out of place as it discusses the cost of later crusades before they are described.
  • "After the fall of Acre" You have not yet described the fall of Acre. I would move this paragraph down and mention that the Hospitallers still exist.
  • "instead conquering Byzantium twice" Surely Constantinople and a large part of Byzantium, but not the whole? And what happened after the first conquest?
  • "before being routed by the Bulgars at Adrianople. After gathering in Venice" This is confusing. You do not make clear that you have described the end and then gone back to the beginning.
  • "Further Eastern Crusades". This and the following sections are confused. This one has "Main articles: Fifth Crusade, Sixth Crusade, Barons' Crusade, and Siege of Jerusalem (1244)", but the crusades are not referred to in the text, and the section covers Louis IX's seventh crusade, which according to "Main articles" should be in the next section, "Division and failure". The crusades linked in "Main articles" should be mentioned in the text.
  • "but an invasion further into Egypt was compelled to surrender." An invasion does not surrender.
  • "Although Frederick II had been excommunicated" You need to give further details about Frederick as he has not previously been mentioned, apart from in the terminology section.
  • "Defeated at Gaza, Theobald agreed treaties with Damascus and Egypt that returned territory to the crusader states." I do not understand this. He was defeated but secured territory for the crusaders?
  • "In 1244 a band of Khwarezmian mercenaries travelling to Egypt captured Jerusalem" Captured on whose behalf?
  • "Louis IX organised a crusade to attack Egypt in response" You need to explain that this was King Louis of France.
  • The last paragraph of "Further Eastern Crusades" would be better placed at the beginning of "Thirteenth century".
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Division and failure'. Again the subjects linked in 'Main articles' are not specifically mentioned in the text.
  • The first paragraph is confusing. "In 1256 Genoa and Venice went to war over territory in Acre and Tyre." Presumably from what is said below Genoa held the territories and Venice attacked them, but you need to say so.
  • "Venice conquered the disputed territory but was unable to expel the Genoese." If Venice was unable to expel the Genoese then it did not conquer the territory.
  • "Two factions embarked on a 14-month siege" Siege of where and who were the besiegers (presumably Venice but you should say so)?
  • "Pope Urban IV brokered a peace to support the defence against the Mongols." You need to say first that the Mongols were sweeping through the area.
  • "Genoa finally regained its quarter in Acre in 1288." The quarter has not previously been mentioned.
  • The second paragraph of 'Division and failure' assumes considerable background knowledge of matters which are not explained.
  • "He delayed Charles by beginning negotiations with Pope Gregory X for union of the Greek and the Latin churches with Charles and Philip of Courtenay compelled to form a truce with Byzantium." The last part of this sentence is unclear. Presumably the Pope compelled Charles and Philip - who has not been mentioned before.
  • "But the fleet was destroyed in an uprising fomented by Michael VIII Palailogos and Peter III of Aragon. Peter was proclaimed king" The fleet was destroyed where and Peter king of where? Presumably king of Sicily as Charles was king of Sicily but this has not been explained.
  • "before Charles died in 1285, allowing Henry II of Cyprus to reclaim Jerusalem." How did Charles's death allow Henry to reclaim Jerusalem - and why "reclaim" - had he held it before?
  • "This led to the legitimisation of seizing land and possessions from pagans on religious grounds and was debated through to the Age of Discovery in the 15th and 16th centuries." This seems to hint at a thought which is not spelled out. Presumably the arguments used to justify seizing land from Muslims were later used to justify expropriation of natives of colonies. Does "debated" mean that the justification was contested?
  • Green tickY— I have taken this out. One sentence that didn't add much 18:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • "This made the reunification of the Christian church impossible and created a perception of the Westerners of being both aggressors and losers." This should probably be qualified. The crusades cannot have been the only factor making reunification impossible.
  • "Helen Nicholson argues that the increased contact between cultures the Crusades instigated improved the perception of Islamic culture." "instigated" is an odd word here.
  • "Alongside contact in Sicily and Spain the crusades led to knowledge exchange with Christians learning new ideas from the Muslims in literature and hygiene." This could do with clarification. So far as I know, Europeans learned about ancient classical and later Muslim and Jewish thought mainly in Spain, but other centres such as Sicily and the crusader states no doubt contributed.
  • "The order also came into conflict with the Eastern Orthodox Church, Pskov Republic and Novgorod Republic. In 1240 the Novgorod army defeated the Swedes in the Battle of the Neva, and two years later they defeated the Livonian Order in the Battle on the Ice." Were Pskov and Novgorod Orthodox and were the battles defeats for the Catholics?
  • "The Cathars were driven underground" Surely they were exterminated rather than driven underground?
  • " I would leave out the quotes from Brehier in 1908 as they are dated and probably do not reflect modern scholarship.
  • "Francis I of France sought allies from all quarters, including scandalous plans with German Protestant princes." This is vague and "scandalous" is POV.
  • This article is some way off A-Class in my view. There are far too many matters alluded to but not explained. A more serious fault is that there is very little on the crusaders' opponents. If I remember correctly when reading Runciman, the early successes and later failures of the crusaders were to a considerable degree due to early disunity among the Muslim rulers and later unity under leaders such as Saladin, but this is not brought out. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the process of working my way through the gap on the Crusaders opponents.16:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • @Dudley Miles:—Do you think you can have another look through, Dudley. I have added some content on the key Muslim beligerants which I feel adds to the context. Runciman while respected in a literary sense doesn't seem to carry the weight he once did amongst historians and the old unity/disunity argument for the ebb and flow of the conflict doesn't seem so compelling, at least to Asbridge. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • "Many modern historians hold widely varying opinions of the Crusaders under Papal sanction." This reads a bit oddly. I would delete the word "many" and "under Papal sanction". Also the comments you cite are all criticisms of the Crusaders, whereas from the first sentence the reader would expect examples of disagreements among historians.
  • Green tickY—done, also joined the two paragraphs to give pro and anti view Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Constantinople was sacked during the Fourth Crusade, rendering the reunification of Christendom impossible." Was reunification in prospect at that point? Was not the key result of the sacking to weaken Byzantium so much that it eventually fell to the Turks?
  • Green tickY—removed clause on that basis, although it is sourcable to Davies. I don't think the idea that this led to the fall carries so much weight these days due to the two have centuries between events. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Crusade" is not a contemporaneous term" Yet you say crucesignatus dates to the end of the eleventh century. This is the time of the Third Crusade, which seems pretty contemporary.
  • ""Croisade" appeared in English [[:Category:|Category:]]1575, and continued to be the leading form until [[:Category:|Category:]]1760." Eh?
  • "Giles Constable describes four different perspectives among scholars:" It would be helpful to reference this as much of the detail below is referenced to other scholars.
  • "The resulting unified polity in the 7th and 8th centuries" I am not sure "unified" is the correct word in view of the civil wars and Sunni Shia split.
  • "Following the Gregorian Reform, an assertive, reformist papacy attempted to increase its power and influence." As you have just been discussing the East-West Schism I would add for clarity "over the laity".
  • "The majority ecumenical view was that non-Christians could not be forced to accept Christian baptism or be physically assaulted for having a different faith" This seems dubious as crusades were partly about forcibly converting heretics and pagans.
  • "Historian Paul Everett Pierson" If I remember correctly, reviewers have complained when I wrote "Historian" instead of "The historian". Dan do you have a view on this?
  • "In addition to the motivations of the landed classes" I do not know what this means in the context of the People's Crusade. Delete?
  • The use of the term "apotheosis" is confusing. In the lead you define it as forgiveness of sins and link to the article on apotheosis. However, the apotheosis article defines it as glorification of a subject to divine level, and says the term is not used by the Catholic church. It gives "Main article: Divinization (Christian), and in the main text you pipe apotheosis to Divinization (Christian), which does not mention apotheosis but gives a similar definition to the apotheosis article. These definitions are different from the one you give in the lead. I think you need to look further in your sources and maybe just explain what the poor crusaders were hoping for and avoid using a term like apotheosis which is defined differently in your source to the Wikipedia article you link to.
  • Green tickY— Both the source and OED agree on a definition of ascension to heaven. Changed to match to avoid confusion Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Normans resisted for hours before the arrival caused a Turkish withdrawal." The arrival of the main army?
  • "the sultan of Baghdad sent a relief force" I think it would be clearer to say a force to recapture the city rather than relief force, which would normally mean a force to prevent the crusaders from taking the city.
  • "No assistance was provided by the Byzantines" Obviously assistance to the crusaders, but you should say so.
  • "surprised by the motivation of the Franks" motivation does not seem the right word. Maybe "vigour" or "sudden attack by the Franks".
  • "the narrative did much to cement the Crusaders' reputation for barbarism" What narrative?
  • "Al-Afdal's relief force at Ascalon" Who was Al-Afdal?
  • "The Crusaders considered their pilgrimage complete" I would say most of the crusaders? Is there any estimate of how many returned?
  • Green tickY—gone for most, I can't find any relaible figure for the numbers that returned. I don't think it is known. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A second Crusade known as the Crusade of 1101 followed in which Turks led by Kilij Arslan defeated the Crusaders in three separate battles.[55]" This is confusing as you describe the Second Crusade of the mid 12th century below. I would delete if you only think it is worth this brief mention.

*More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[edit]

  • "smaller scale Crusading continued around the Crusader States in the early 12th century" I do not think "Crusading" should be capitalised, and what does it mean - attempts to expand the territory of Crusader States?

Green tickY—elaborated, but this is covered in the list Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC) "Governance fell to the caliph's chief administrator, called the vizier. From 1121 the system fell" Rrepetition of "fell" and the first sentence does not sound right. I am not sure of the best wording but maybe "The caliph's chief minister, the vizier, was dominant in the government." Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "After a life-threatening illness" A date would be helpful here.

Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Saladin lured the force into inhospitable terrain with water" with no water?

Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Pope Urban III died of deep sadness on 19 October 1187 on hearing of the defeat.[75] Pope Gregory VIII issued a papal bull" I would say "His successor, Pope Gregory"

Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "For the first time, reigning monarchs not only swore their support to the Crusades but endeavoured to take part in them." But Louis VII and Conrad III had taken part in the Second Crusade.

Green tickY— correct, removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "before judging that he lacked the resources to successfully capture the city." The version I read was that he thought he could capture the city but not defend it. However, that may not reflect current scholarly opinion.

Green tickY— Generally it looks like Richard's motivations are unclear, but reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "most of the Crusaders returned to Germany when Henry died." When?

Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Large groups of young adults and children spontaneously gathered, believing their innocence would enable success where their elders had failed." Did any of them travel to the Eastern Mediterranean?

Green tickY— not many, if any Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • You say that all Byzantine territories were conquered by the Fourth Crusade, but this is wrong. Some areas were not conquered.

Green tickY— qualified to European territoryNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Frederick was the most Muslim of Christian monarchs" This does not sound right - most knowledgeable about it or sympathetic to it?

Green tickY—reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Louis IX's brother Charles of Anjou." Presumably Charles was the leader of the Crusaders at that time, but it is worth saying so.

Green tickY—no, Louis led the crusades, Charles was attempting to build a Empire in the Med Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "leaving only Prince Edward" I would say that he was the future King Edward I of England.

Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Most remaining Latin Christians left for destinations in the Frankokratia". According to the article on Frankokratia it means the period of Latin rule over parts of the former Byzantine empire rather than an area. The term is in any case better not used as few people will understand it. What happened to those who did not go to Byzantine areas - did most of them return to Europe?

Green tickY— or rather Cyprus Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[edit]

  • "In 1322 the king of France suppressed the Knights Templar, ostensibly for sodomy, magic, and heresy, but probably for financial and political reasons." This is wrong. In 1307 King Philip IV of France had the Templars arrested, tortured and some burned at the stake. In 1312 he pressured the Pope into suppressing the order.

Green tickY—date corrected and sentence expandedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Wendish Crusade of 1147 saw Saxons, Danes, and Poles enforce Catholic control over the tribes of Mecklenburg and Lusatia, Polabian Slavs (or "Wends")." I suggest "tribes of Mecklenburg and Lusatia, who were Polabian Slavs"? Also, "enforce Catholic control" is euphemistic. According to the article on the Wendish Crusade it was an unsuccessful attempt at forcible conversion.

Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Livonian Knights were defeated by the Lithuanians," You should make clear that Livonian Knights is another name for the Brothers of the Sword. A date would also be helpful.

Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The order also came into conflict with the Eastern Orthodox Church in the form of the Pskov and Novgorod Republics." I would delete "the form of"

Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "they defeated the Livonian Order itself" Why "itself"?

Green tickY— removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Cathar culture was brutally suppressed" The Cathars were brutally suppressed, not just their culture.

Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "against the Bosnian Church and was depicted as a campaign against Catharism (Bogomilism)" I suggest "against the independent Bosnian Church, which was accused of Catharism".

Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Sigismund advised the Crusaders to focus on defence when they reached the Danube" I am not clear what this means. Was Sigismund suggesting that they join the defence of a town or area against Turkish attack?

Green tickY— reworded - suggestion was for a cautious defensive approach rather than frontal attack Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "a 1456 Crusade to lift the Siege of Belgrade." I would specify "by the Turks"

Green tickY— gone for Ottoman Empire Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • " In April 1487 Pope Innocent VIII called for a Crusade against the Waldensians of Savoy, the Piedmont, and the Dauphiné in southern France and northern Italy."What were the Waldensians etc accused of?

Green tickY— heresy, amended Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The final end of the Crusades, in an at least nominal effort of Catholic Europe against Muslim incursion," This is confusing. I read this initially as referring to the last Crusade, but from what follows it appears to refer to a Christian Moslem alliance which put an end to Crusades. Which does it mean, and if the latter why should it have put an end to the Crusades as there had been such alliances before? Also, "final end" is tautologous.

Green tickY— final removed. Slightly reworded, the point is that the Franco-Imperial conflict was the primary concern, along with the wars of religion. Crusading ended and became part of wider politics across faiths Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Textual sources are simpler, and translations made in Antioch are notable but considered secondary in importance to the works emanating from Iberia and the hybrid culture of Sicily. In addition, Muslim libraries contained classical Greek and Roman texts that allowed Europe to rediscover pre-Christian philosophy." I would say "Moslem Spain" rather than Iberia. Also, I do not see the relevance of these comments to the Crusades. The Crusaders had no interest in book learning and played no part in transmitting it to Christian Europe.

Green tickY— some editors have raised the transmission of culture via the Crusades so it is useful to put into context. It is considered secondary but still significant due to the two centuries of the Outremer and the resulting trade etc Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Muslim world exhibited sustained disinterest in the Crusades" I would prefer "The Muslim world showed no interest in the Crusades". This paragraph partly repeats what is said above under 'Legacy'.

Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC) Dudley Miles (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles:—Thank you for the detail run through, I think I have addressed your comments and I hope it meets your satisafaction. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few more

  • "The term Crusades itself is early modern English, modelled on Middle Latin cruciatae" This contradicts what you say in terminology.

Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Under the papacies of Calixtus II, Honorius II, Eugenius III and Innocent II On a smaller scale," The grammar has gone wrong here.

Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the King of Portugal, Afonso I, re-took Lisbon" Had he held it before?

Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the ruthless Baybars" You spell is Baibars above

Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

  • "allowed Europe to rediscover pre-Christian philosophy." - and science and medicine?

Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Dudley Miles (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. thanks for the effort you have put in to making this a first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comments by auntieruth55[edit]

  • I've read/reread this several times, over time. I agree with many of the comments above, especially Dudley's. And it's definitely improving as you incorporate reviewer's comments! This is an overview article, so it should have, specifically, an overview of the Crusades: all of them, their general problems, opponents, purposes, challenges, and commanders. I don't think it needs to go into a lot of detail, but it should link to other articles that do. Allusions to an issue, for example, need to be directly explained. Not in massive detail, but clearly enough to cover the issue. I'd like to be able to refer one of my students to this article and have them come away with a broad overview of the Crusades: time frame, goals, opponents, campaigns, general outcomes, etc.
  • one specific thing: footnotes should probably be called Notes. The section you call "references" is structured the way foot notes usually is in printed material.
  • The above said, this is a massive project, and thank you for tackling it. auntieruth (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has appeared on the GA list of nominees, and I've asked the editor to get someone from GOCE to have a look at it. I agree with above that it has some ways to go, and I think the editor is willing to put in the effort. It has good "bones" and Norfish is dedicated, so can we put all this either on hold or be patient, while the GOCE people have a look? Thanks. auntieruth (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There now appears to be the start of an edit war here, so not sure what to do. auntieruth (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Less an edit war, more some low level vandalism being reverted by other editors. This article seems to attract it from time to time, it will dies down soon. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • good. What's the story on the GOCE? auntieruth (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Auntieruth55:—number 26 in the queue today, I have tried a previous copyeditor but he is too busy to repeat the effort. I think we will just need to be patient. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I've passed this through Good Article. It's had a serious copy edit by the GOCE and we should have a look at it again. auntieruth (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Auntieruth[edit]

  • I've gone through and these are some initial edits. Please revert or adjust as you see fit. auntieruth (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • did a little more in run through, especially under historiography. Linked authors, etc.
  • you mention rise of nationalism in 13th century, I think. That would have to be cited. I really doubt that anything existed that could be construed as nationalism that early. There would be pride in your ruler's conquests, certainly, but I think what you're talking about is kingdom building. auntieruth (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY—I don't think the entire paragraph worked, it looks largely sourced from the Charles I of Naples article, which is also uncited. I have rewritten based on Asbridge. I think it looks a lot better now Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Auntieruth55:— Hi Auntieruth, nearly five months in and the article has 3 supports and no opposes, anything else needed from your prospective? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • I've emailed the editor for this information. It should be in there regardless of whether the article is going on to additional assessments. auntieruth (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources appear to be:
  • It doesn't need to be in the article itself, just on the image description page. Have a look at the other maps in the article, they all incorporate reference details. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Norfolkbigfish: - can you add the source details to the map? I think that might be the only thing holding this up from promotion, now that the article has 3 supports and no pending comments. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Parsecboy:— I have looked at this again and deleted the image in case this was all that was holding up promotion. I was looking at the wrong image by mistake when I thought I could source this. @Auntieruth55: did try to email the author but I haven't heard anything so I assume there was no luck there. I don't think the image/map really added much of use so it seemed better to remove. What happens now regards to promotion? Thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem at all, everything looks to be in order now. I posted the review on the Coordinator talk page, so it should be promoted within the next day. Great work on such a gigantic topic. Parsecboy (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2017 (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 AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Names inscribed on the Equestrian statue of Frederick the Great[edit]

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

Names inscribed on the Equestrian statue of Frederick the Great (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Like Project E (below), the title says it all. I thought initially I'd make a category for these men, but the category glordes did not approve, so we have a list instead. The names were taken directly from the publication announcing the opening of the statue in 1851. Upon advice from Catlemur I added references to every name, most of which are ADB or NDB and explained in the notes. Everyone is linked to at least a stub. Some of these guys have very little written about them--in some cases, Frederick was scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of generalship and he ended up promoting a few men with absolutely no talent for leadership or military science. He expected his generals to lead from the front and consequently, he lost quite a few of them in combat. auntieruth (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009: Support

  • The name of the article drew me in - wonderfully obscure (in all the best ways!)
  • good!  :)
  • A very initial thought: I wondered if this should be a "List of names inscribed..." article, since most of it is made up by lists?
  • To confirm: is the capitalisation of "Equestrian statue of Frederick the Great" right? Various sources also put it as the "equestrian statue of Frederick the Great", but not sure which is the most common
  • Final bit of the lead looks broken ("Beneath the statues are bronze plaques listing")
  • duh. fixed.
  • "depicts the king in military uniform" - MOS would have this as "the King" (it is referring to the specific ruler);

same below

  • yes, fixed. But does not apply to his brothers
  • When you say "The pedestal has two bands of sculpture below the statue of the king", who is "the king"? Surely this is still Frederick the Great? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The lower of the sculpted bands depicts 74 men of Frederick the Great's time in life-size" would "The lower of the sculpted bands depicts life-size 74 men of Frederick the Great's time" be cleaner?
  • cleaned!
  • "The lowest band" - is this different from the lower band?
  • well yes, there is Frederick on the top, a band of bas-relief illustrations of his life, a band of the virtues, then the band of men on horse backand others, and then a sort of spacing band, and then the bronze plates with the names.
  • The text currently says, though, that "The pedestal has two bands of sculpture below the statue of the king", which I think is where the confusion comes in for me. I found your description here a lower clearer. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The figures represented are predominantly military, but also include six men of note: diplomats, the Prime Minister of Prussia, jurists, poets, and philosophers." - this didn't read well to me; we say six men, and then give five different categories.
  • because there were duplicate categories
  • I'd suggest then "six men of note, including diplomats..." Hchc2009 (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brother of the King" - capitalisation seems wrong
  • he had several brothers; if there were one, it would be Brother.
  • "Philosopher" -ditto
  • "Diplomat" - ditto (same below where you are giving a role after a comma - sometimes you use lower case - which I think is right - occasionally upper case)
  • I think I've fixed these.
  • "did not reach the rank of General" - is the capitalisation right here?
  • changed to did not achieve the highest military rank.
  • Note on sources - could this be in normal size type? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • sure. Done
Thank you! auntieruth (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MisterBee1966: Support

  • "they are marked with a <Hammer (Last Stone First End)>". I want to suggest color coding these entries in the table and using a searchable character tag such as an exclamation mark (!), etc.
  • Some entries in the section labeled "Standing, full figures" which are marked with an asterisk ... As before, I suggest to add some color coding to make them easier to identify
  • Perhaps this would then have been better as a table than current format?
  • In the lead "Beneath the statues bronze plaques list the names of military men, philosophers, mathematicians, poets, statesmen, engineers, and others important in Prussia's emergence as a military power in the mid-18th century." I suggest to state how many names in total are inscribed and to make a statistical statement saying how many of them are military men, philosophers, mathematicians, poets, etc.
  • OR?
  • I suggest mentioning its close proximity to the Bebelplatz, Humboldt University, St. Hedwig's Cathedral, Nazi book burning (just a thought)
  • that might be original research? Or not? I've added one of the images showing location relative to other places, but not the commentary. auntieruth (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section labeled "Inscriptions", I suggest making a statement that no names are inscribed on the east face other than Frederick the Great himself and Frederick William IV of Prussia (under his reign the statue was completed)
  • okay will do that. .... Although I don't remember that from the source....?
  • the link to Wiki commons in the lower right hand corner leads nowhere (commons does have a Category:Equestrian statue of Frederick the Great), suggest fixing
  • Ah, but it should lead somewhere....and now it's fixed!
  • "Anton Balthasar König, Biographisches Lexikon aller Helden und Militärpersonen: Welche sich in preussischen Diensten berühmt gemacht haben (Biographical Dictionary of all those heroes and military figures who have earned fame in the Prussian service), A Wever, 1791. v. 4, p. 2" unify naming convention for page numbers
  • done
  • check capitalization. example "Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis, (1698–1759), mathematician, first president of the Prussian Academy of Sciences", mathematician is lower case, while in most instances the explanatory text following the comma begins in capital letters. I thought military ranks are only capitalized if they are place before the name. Please check
  • You and Hchc2009 seem to have conflicting ideas about what gets capitalized. auntieruth (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Hchc2009, but the question is this: is the military title capitalized after the person's name. It's clear it's John Smith was a brigadier general, but is it John Smith, Brigadier General, or John Smith, brigadier general? auntieruth (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure it would be either "John Smith, brigadier general" or "Brigadier General John Smith" - the latter would be more normal, I'd have thought, but happy to be corrected! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've moved all the titles to before their names.
  • Should this be in table format? auntieruth (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tested one section in table format. See what you think. I can add a column that shows where their name is, and then merge all the tables too. auntieruth (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I liked the previous layout more. The current table layout creates too much empty space. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Well, I was jsut thinking I liked the table layout more. I've filled in some of the blank spaces. I don't think it needs to have such large lines, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Although I like what you did above, it's not sortable, which you said it needed to be....? @Hchc2009:, what do you think? auntieruth (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably neutral on that one. On my screen at least, the table looks fine, but I'm generally cautious about complicating more simple formatting approaches unless there's a strong reason to do so. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MisterBee1966: @Hchc2009: changes you've suggested have been adapted and adopted. auntieruth (talk)

Support

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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Project E[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

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

Toolbox

The title says it all. When this article was created in November 2008, it was immediately nominated for deletion as a hoax. It wasn't. More recently I have expanded it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67

  • I reviewed this article for GAN and it is in good shape. I think that it needs some greater precision around the nomenclature of the bombers used under this project. It uses "V-bombers" as an umbrella term to refer to them, but at one point Canberra's were used as well. I think it would be better to use "strategic and tactical bombers" or something similar to refer to the bombers that were used when it is a more general reference, and only use "V-bombers" where it just refers to the Valiant, Vulcan etc that were actually V-bombers. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've only used "V-bombers" to refer to the Valiant, Vulcan and Victor. I've tried to make it clear that Canberra was not a V-bomber. Is there some wording anywhere in the article from which a reader might infer that Canberra was a V-bomber? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, for example, there is "The Minister of Defence, Harold Macmillan, determined that the V-bomber force" when it seems clear that Canberra's were being considered for the role at the time, not just the planned V-bombers. Did Macmillan say "V-bombers" or was he more generic? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he said "V-bombers" and Canberras were not being considered at all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, it must just be me. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: Nice work, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, "for the V-bombers, the British strategic bombers..." --> "for the V-bomber fleet, the British strategic bombers..."?
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the lead, "based in Germany and the United Kingdom and assigned to NATO..." --> "based in Germany and the United Kingdom, which were assigned to NATO"?
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the lead, "until 1977, superseded by the Lance missile..." --> "until 1977, when it was superseded by the Lance missile"?
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the References, Nuclear weapons-free world? : Britain, Trident and the Challenges Ahead --> Nuclear Weapons-Free World?: Britain, Trident and the Challenges Ahead?
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the body, suggest rewording: "four fell short, which is always regrettable but particularly so when nuclear weapons are involved..." --> perhaps just highlight the risk that this theoretically posed to own troops
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    suggest further tweaking it to "four fell short. In view of the danger this posed to friendly troops, as well as the other limitations, a new British project was launched to develop a better missile..." (not a warstoper, though...the wording that is, but I guess it might be if one actually did drop a nuke on the FLOT. Okay, sorry, bad joke... ) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    During an exercise in the early 1960s, the GOC BAOR accidentally called in a nuclear strike on his own headquarters, and a signals failure prevented the order being rescinded. Fortunately, it was just an exercise, and no harm was done, except to reputations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "warheads were supplied 1960" --> "warheads were supplied in 1960"
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • All tool checks ok (i.e. no dabs, external links work, no citation errors, no duplicate links, Earwig tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrase [45]).
    • Prose looks good to me after a complete read through (although I agree with AR's comments above).
    • I made a few minor changes per the MOS [46].
    • Article seems to provide a through overview of the topic and is well referenced.
    • Images look to all be either PD or appropriately licenced and have the req'd info as far as I can see. Captions seem ok.
    • There is some overlinking of Margaret Gowing, Lorna Arnold and Richard G. Hewlett in the reference section which could probably be removed per WP:REPEATLINK. Anotherclown (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
       Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2017 (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 Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Project SAINT[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

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

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel that it fits the criteria. It forms somewhat of a niche, and actual content is somewhat limited due to it being cancelled, but I feel that there is still enough. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kees08[edit]

Anti shouldn't be capitalized here: ...cheaper Anti-satellite...

 Done.

In what year? - cost 56 million dollars.

After checking the sources, it merely says what they were projected to cost, not what they actually cost. I have removed it.

Increase the number of wikilinks, for example in project phases there are none. Radar cross-section would be a good one for that section, as an example.

  •  Done

I understand the significance of the F-15 missile photo, but in my opinion any photos not of the subject matter should be called out by name at least once in the article.

It sort of is with the "The project's only unique role, that of being able to destroy satellites, was then given to fighter planes, which were cheaper and could hit a satellite without being detected" links directly to the photo of a fighter plane with a ASAT rocket. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should be 'such as a' in this sentence: The third phase of the project included several elements such as powerful main engine whose propellant was pressure fed

  •  Done

For this, the proper term would be cold gas thrusters, so it would read 'along with nitrogen cold gas thrusters for orientation' or similar wording, could also say its for attitude: along with cooled nitrogen gas jets for orientation

  •  Done

Reword to "After this, the Agena would use its propellant to put the...:After this the Agena would be used as fuel to put the SAINT in a co-orbit with its target

  •  Done

Propellant, not fuel: depleted of battery power and fuel.

  •  Done

Would coat be a better verb?: was to blast it with black paint

  •  Done

Maybe try 'rendering it inoperable': making it useless

  •  Done

Additionally, I have found a couple of sources that give a little bit more interesting background. You might have to dig into the material that these sources are citing, but for your reference:

https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/14219/Sambaluk_ku_0099D_12030_DATA_1.pdf?sequence=1

Contained in these links are interesting things like the fact they changed it from Satellite Interceptor to Satellite Inspector to make it align with the President's view of having peace in space. Obviously look into it and vet the source. Also I swear I had found more than one source when I first started typing. I'll try to find them again later.

@Kees08: Wasn't incredibly full of detail, but the bit about the kill function not being developed after 1959 is very useful, I've added it to the developments section. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Iazyges: I have received a lot of sources from the reference desk and can email them to you, can you send me an email and I can forward them on to you? I would expand the article, but I am guessing as an A-class reviewer I am not really supposed to? Kees08 (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Iazyges: Anything useful in those citations? No rush, just curious. Kees08 (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kees08: I've only gone through a few, but so far, nothing exceptional, in one of them it mentions the president (Eisenhower) wanted an investigator from the start, but that is huge enough that I would have thought every source would talk about, not just a thesis. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kees08: As you are the last of the three, would you mind taking another look at this? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a couple of minor copy edits. I was looking through a source I sent you, "A Falling Star: SAINT, America's First Antisatellite System," and it seems like there is information there that would help polish the article. For example, it gives specific reasons and numbers for the choice of the booster (it was based on reliability numbers). It also has a more thorough listing of potential sensors and equipment that the system would contain. Additionally, it gives an estimated length and mass of it. This is all on page 3, or PDF page 46 of the document. The next page discusses how the weapon would specifically operate, such as the large delta-v changes down to how fast it would be approaching the satellite it would be inspecting. These are just examples of things I think would really make the article standout more. As I have never done an A-class review before, if these comments are out of the scope of the review, please let me know and I will stamp a support on it. If these are the sort of comments you should be getting, then definitely take a look at that document and the other documents I sent to see if there is good information like I pointed out above. That was more of an example of the good information available, and not an all-inclusive list of what I would expect to see. After you take another go at including all of that, I'll skim the sources and make sure the major, relevant project details are all included. I hope this is helpful! Great article so far, I am fascinated by the ASAT programs. Kees08(Talk) 19:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hawkeye7[edit]

Ah, the 1950s. The Golden Age of Mad Science.

Yep, I'm hoping to live until its declassified (should have been in 2012, but wasn't for some reason) so I can find out exactly who, at a meeting about how it would take out a satellite, stood up and said "lets launch a one megaton nuke at it, and if they were summarily fired.
Judging from Project A119, he probably got his own TV show. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The project was created after... Following this... In response... Suggest removing the "Following this", since things that come after are invariably following. Consider removing "In response" too.
     Done
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (at the time called Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA)) Just name and link Advanced Research Projects Agency
     Done
  • the construction of a launch facility within 12 hours of Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg These are on opposite sides of the country. If it's twelve hours by air, last I looked, all of the lower 48 were. (And Alaska and Hawaii were not states at the time.)
@Hawkeye7: What do you recommend I do here? Remove it entirely?
What do we really mean? What does the source say? launch facilities capable of responding within 12 hours at Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg So we are not talking about constructing new launch facilities at all; we are talking about using the two existing facilities, and making arrangements so a SAINT can be launched within 12 hours. Which makes far more sense. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the source, it means building two new launch facilities that could respond within 12 hours. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The study undertaken by the Space Technology Laboratory suggested the use of a Thor-Hydra booster, however the more capable and more readily available Atlas-Agena B booster was selected instead. Phase two however, would use the Atlas-Centaur booster. Can we cut back on the "however"s?
     Done
  • a nuclear weapon or something else whose power source involved a radioactive substance Nuclear weapons were not normally powered by radioactive substances (although it's not a bad idea). Delete "else"
     Done
  • Other sensors included infrared, gravimetric sensors to ascertain the mass of the other satellite, while Replace the comma with "and"
     Done
  • It was planned to the launch four satellites in December 1962. Delete "the"
     Done
  • The project had also gone heavily over budget, spending over 100 million dollars, which was several times what was reported to the public. Are we talking here about the budget, or the cost overrun being under-reported? (And suggest deleting "heavily")
     Done

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

  • Support: G'day, not a lot stood out to me. Just a couple of nitpicks, but overall seems pretty good to me, altogether the content is over my head:
    • "fas" --> "Federation of American Scientists"
    •  Done
    • "metres"" --> "meters"
    •  Done
    • "kilometres" --> "kilometers"
    •  Done
    • is there any explanation as to why a station was needed in Rhodesia? (I assume it was due to rotation of the Earth or something similar?)
      Presumably, but I have nothing I can cite for that. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the infobox it says the role was "Satellite killer", but from the text I get the impression that it morphed more into a satellite inspector?
    •  Fixed
    • in the infobox it says "Duration – December 1962", I wonder if this should include some sort of start date? Possibly March 1961, or even "c. 1957" if the exact start isn't known?
    •  Done
    • "operators in the USSR, or else if it sensed that it was being scanned..." ("else" probably isn't required here)
    •  Done
    • "with possible ASAT use", probably need to define this acronym (I assume anti-satellite)
    •  Done
    • "A wing of the Program was called...", "program" probably doesn't need caps here
    •  Done
    • the images seemed appropriately licenced to me (no action required)
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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Kunersdorf[edit]

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

Battle of Kunersdorf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Second of a four-part series on Frederick the Great's battles (others being Battle of Hochkirch, presently here for review, Battle of Leuthen, awaiting GA review, and Battle of Rossbach, still in puberty). auntieruth (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:SchlachtbeiKunersdorf.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Joachim-Bernhard-vp-2.jpg, File:Kleist-fällt-bei-kunersdorf.jpg, File:Brief_von_Friedrich_der_Große.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikki, I added PD-old-70-1923 to the files. Is that the correct tag? auntieruth (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the work was published before 1923 - is that true for all of these? (And if you're using that tag you don't also need to keep the separate life+70 tag). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes it's true for all. I didn't want to remove a tag that someone else had put on though.  :( auntieruth (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • Citations formatting inconsistent.
  • Standard offer: I will happily replace your citations with {{sfn}} and your references with {{cite book}} or other as needed. Your choice.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the offer! I don't see inconsistencies, though. First citation has full information. Second citation I use the shortened "refname=" form or, if page numbers are not the same, I state the author and page number, and use refname= for further notations on that one. I do them this way all the time, too. auntieruth (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I acknowledge that you declined. For conversational purposes only: there are four reasons to do so, all four of which apply to this article. The first reason is to standardize the formatting. [Will discuss below] Many articles – especially longer ones – are very far from being so well-tended... The second reason is that Ucucha's harv tools can help find citations without a book in the bibliography, and vice versa. [Will discuss below].. The third and perhaps least important reason is simply to provide a clickable link from each citation to the corresponding bibliography entry. The fourth reason is that it provides a rigid system for other editors, who may come along months later, to follow paint-by-numbers.
  • Alas, there seem to be many inconsistencies. I could point them out and you could fix them, but then, the next time we have a nom like this we'd have to check them manually again and if any are found then you'd have to fix them again, etc. Why do so much extra work?
  • What is Duffy, A life? Not in Bibliography.
  • Walther Killy, Dictionary of German Biography... Not in Bibliography.
  • Redman in citations seven times; not in Bibliography
  • "Scott, p. 15; Duffy, here. " .... doesn't say which Duffy
  • Hedburg in Bibliography, not in citations. it is in the notes
  • Ditto Hoezsch. also cited
  • Ditto Jones.
  • Ditto Longman. removed
  • is Duffy's middle name Duffy also? "Duffy, Christopher Duffy. Frederick the Great:"
  • You said first mention (only?) has full information, but full info twice for Szabo; for Duffy, The army of Frederick the Great, (which has inconsistent capitalization); twice for Blanning (once as Tim Blanning and once as TCW Blanning)
  • Weigley is given in Bibliography as a chapter, but in citations as a book title. (Meanwhile, Horn is given consistently as a chapter in the citations and the Bibliography, so Horn's formatting is inconsistent with Weigley's)
  • And perhaps more, but it's time for me to go do something...more later.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't understand what you are suggesting. Now that you point them out I see the issues! Are you saying that there is something that will automatically construct all this ? It took me two years to accept the ref name short cut. I don't easlly like the author name parens page number thing auntieruth (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(←) yes there are many tools to make things easier and more consistent. I personally favor {{sfn}} (and I also use {{sfnm}} extensively, but many editors seem to want to avoid that) and {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}}. It ain't as hard as it looks (tools help, will explain) and it has all the advantages I explained above. Forex, User:Ucucha/HarvErrors in your Special:MyPage/common.js. displays an error every time there is a citation not in the bibliography, or a book in the bibliography not in the citations. And making all those cite books templates can be done automagically as well... I have to run now for an hour or two but books... if you copy the url from google books, you can paste it into the tool that's linked on the bottom-most userbox on my userpage, the Wikipedia Citation Tool for Google Books. There's another for journals, I'm told, but I have never used it. More later, gotta run.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Prose: "He assumed he could use his trade-mark oblique order attack, but his reconnaissance had be incomplete. He acted on ground of his enemy's choosing, not his own. His enemy expected him to attempt the oblique order attack, so effective at Rossbach and Leuthen, was no longer a surprise."  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Things are looking good. I'm confused by the Miracle. The Miracle is mentioned in this article as though it were immediately after the battle, but the Miracle article says that the miracle was Elizabeth's death perhaps 3 years later. This article also says E's death saved Prussia. So... why didn't the Russians press their advantage? It doesn't seem to be because of E's death...?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Took out "miracle" I was never happy with it--a relict of the old edits.
  • However, that said, the Russians were constantly pulling back for a variety of reasons:
  • Elizabeth was ailing for a long time, and the generals were all concerned about a palace coup. Several times word would come that she had died, or was dying, and everyone would rush back ...and then she actually hadn't died, no need to panic.
  • Ultimately, Elizabeth's death did save Prussia, because her heir was a big fan of Frederick's. and he pulled Russia out of the war.
  • Russian participation was always problematic for the Russians. It was a long way to East Prussia, must less to Prussia proper. After the primary battle in East Prussia Battle of Gross-Jaegersdorf, which the Russians "won", they with drew back to Russia. The length of the supply line was great, and to extend the army into Brandenburg itself, another 300 miles, was very difficult. The Austrians were supposed to
  • OK, I'm looking for the answer to my questions. Didn't find it in my first source (Podruczny, Grzegorz, and Jakub Wrzosek. "Lone Grenadier: An Episode from the Battle of Kunersdorf, 12 August 1759." Journal of Conflict Archaeology 9.1 (2014): 33-47.) Did, however, find tons of good background info. If you cannot get this source, I can email it to you.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmmm, is this it? Was Liegnitz the reason the Russians didn't press forward?:

The pivotal moment came on August 15, 1760, at Liegnitz, a battle Frederick could not afford to lose. Defeat would have been more catastrophic than at Kunersdorf. Instead, Frederick coerced a much larger Austrian force into retreat after a short, sharp engagement. Liegnitz broke an almost-two year-long pattern of defeats, saving Prussian morale and Frederick’s prestige. The Austrians and Russians knew they had lost their best chance to end the war swiftly and they never regained the strategic initiative

— Book review by William Anthony Hay of Blanning, Tim Frederick the Great: King of Prussia
  • This book (p. 143) says there was "no quarter" given at Kunersdorf, tho it doesn't say who gave no quarter: Gillespie, A. (2011). A History of the Laws of War: Volume 1: The Customs and Laws of War with Regards to Combatants and Captives (Vol. 1). Bloomsbury Publishing.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • no quarter, definitely. Lots of men were killed--Cossacks often slit the throats of the wounded. There were accounts of atrocities, but unspecified as to what they were. But I found no military source on it that I considered reliable....so....
  • OK, maybe these are the reasons: the Lone Greanadier" article states that "...at the Battle of Kay by a much larger Russian army, losing roughly a third of his army in the fighting. This allied victory allowed the Russians and Austrians to link up and threaten the heart of the Prussian state, the city of Berlin. This was certainly the goal of the Russians, although the Austrians wanted the Russian army to move south with them into Silesia and Saxony." So the Allies had disparate goals. This si supported by Thackeray, F. W., & Findling, J. E. (1998). Events That Changed the World in the Eighteenth Century. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Publishing Group. PP 71 (it continues on to 72 but this quote is from 71) says, "The allied war effort, in turn, was hampered by two critical problems. The first was the natural strains to which an alliance, whose partners frequently had mutually exclusive objectives and different regional priorities, was subjected. As a result, the coordination of allied operations was always only tentative at best. The second, which has received much less attention from historians, was the problem of finding safe winter quarters between campaign seasons. Forage and supply were such critical dimensions of eighteenth century warfare that allied armies often had to retreat to home bases even after victories had been won in the field."  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going back to the "Lone Grenadier" article, in addition to offering numerous details about geography, placement, etc., it disagrees with ours about the effect of the bombardment:"... creating an enfilading fire that inflicted heavy casualties on the Russian left wing...assault was aided by the destruction of the abatis by the bombardment and the chaos caused amongst the Russians by the severity of the shelling..."  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes, Redman says that the distance was too great for there to be much damage. I'd like to read this article.  :) auntieruth (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, the Grenadier article disagrees with ours again, this time about troop strength. This one could be the normal inaccuracy of troop counts, or could be an error in the Grenadier article. It does look a tiny bit suspicious because the discrepancy is really pretty large: "...The Russian army alone had 59,800 soldiers augmented by 19,200 Austrians. The Russians had 359 cannons (of which 158 were regimental guns), and the Austrians had 64 cannons (of which 54 were regimental guns). Combined, the opponents of Frederick the Great had 79,000 troops and 423 cannons. The Prussian army was much smaller at 49,900 men with 280 cannons, of which 126 were battalion guns (Großer Generalstab, 1912: 357–67)."  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • quite possibly the armies were bigger. It was customary to send corps to different parts of the locale to protect supply lines, field bakeries, and such. There was a Russian detachment on the west side of the river near Frankfurt, for example. Those numbers wouldn't be counted in the army actually at the battlefield. The discrepancy is the size of the Austrian force, so I think there is no discrepancy. I suspect that the total is the total, and the Russians had about 41k and the Austrians brought the rest. I checked two more sources, and found, again, other numbers, so I've documented those, with notations.
  • As for the Prussian size, Frederick might have fielded 79k in total at the beginning of the year--the General staff book could suggest that--but he certainly wouldn't have that many left by August. He also had armies in the Baltic coast and in Saxony. Typically, he divided his army into groups and sent some off to different locations to defend approaches into Brandenburg. auntieruth (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lingzhi, thank you for sending me that article. Fascinating (as Mr. Spock would say). I've incorporated some info into this. Would you have another look, please? auntieruth (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with one comment: You've sourced troop strengths to Stephenson, but Stephenson in turn sources them to Duffy "Military Life" p. 183. I suggest that Duffy is more reliable that Stephenson; strongly suggest you find every Stephenson cite in this article, track it down in Stephenson's text and see who Stephenson cites it to. Then you might be able to remove Stephenson altogether.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to sort out the troop strengths, but none of them actually agree. Anyway, added a continued explanation of troop strength in dispositions. The only group in question is Allied army. auntieruth (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day Ruth, nice work. I have the following suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • inconsistent caps, compare "allied" v. "Allied" ooops, fixed
  • in the Bibliography, is there an ISBN for the Asprey work? fixed
  • is there an OCLC for the Bodart & Kellogg, Laubert, Petersdorff works? no. Laubert was a dissertation, Petersdorff also I think
    • This is all i could find: Die Schlacht bei Kunersdorf am 12. August 1759. Von M. Laubert. Berlin, Mittler u. Sohn, XII u. 131 S. mit 3 Karten.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest translating the foreign language titles (the cite book template has a field for this if you wishing to use it: |trans_title=
  • "Germany at War: 400 Years of Military History [4 volumes]: 400 Years of Military History" --> I'm not sure about the second "400 Years of Military History", looking at the front cover, I think this might be a typo yes, this appears to be a harvtext hiccup
  • yes, I fixed it.
  • the year of publication for the work by Clark appears to be missing a digit fixed
  • suggest in text attribution for this quote: "It was actually more than that. "...[S]eldom in military history..."" hmmm, it is already fixed.....
  • a couple of terms appear to have duplicate links: Carl Heinrich von Wedel, Battle of Rossbach, Battle of Leuthen, and Battle of Hochkirch
  • "regiment reported the following: Dead are Major von Heinicke, Rittmeister von Frankenberg, Lieutenant von Möllendorf, Kornet Offenius. Badly wounded, Rittmeister von Reitzenstein, Lieutenants von Schenk, Korshagen, von Gröben, von Bohlse, and von Schulz, and the Kornet von Schulz. Lightly wounded are nine others; 21 officers are out of action. Of the non commissioned officers and hussars are 140 dead or wounded. 109 horses dead, 65 wounded, 20 missing. Geschichte, p.133"... Not sure of the grammar/tense here, specifically "Dead are" and "are out of action" etc." it was a letter/report was written at the time, so it's dead are, but ....
  • typo: "reconnaissance had be incomplete..." --> "reconnaissance had been incomplete"? fixed
  • typo: "Seeing, through his telescope, a some wooded hills..." --> Seeing, through his telescope, some wooded hills..." fixed

Linghzi persuaded me to try to the harvard text, and I'm unconvinced. I'm certainly not convinced about translating titles into english. Seems to me to make it unnecessarily long. Especially since some of these German titles are already 50-80 words long....auntieruth (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • No worries, I'm not going to die in a ditch over translations or the citation style (so long as it is consistent). I've added the OCLCs for you (except for the Additional reading section, which I will leave up to you if choose) and tried to make the language icons consistent, but I'm not wedded to the solution. The "|language=" field could also be used if you don't like the icons. Nice work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Anotherclown[edit]

  • All tool checks ok (no dabs, external links ok, no unnecessary duplicate links, no citation errors, Earwig tool reports no issues [47]) (no action req'd).
  • Image captions:
    • "Painting by Alexander Kotzebue, 1848" - I wonder if the name of the painting should be included? (suggestion only) description added.
    • "Map #2: The Allied troops were entrenched in the highest ground around Kundersdorf" - if there is a "Map #2" shouldn't there also be a "Map #1"? The first map you use doesn't have such a label so might seem a little inconsistent if used in one and not the other (query only there is no policy that I'm aware of that covers this). There are two maps, but only one referred to inthe text.
  • "...disintegrated into a completely undisciplined mass...", it be more simply worded as "...disintegrated into an undisciplined mass..." as "completely" seems a little redundant here and might be viewed as a mild form of hyperbole (suggestion only though - its a minor nitpick). done
  • "could fire at least four volleys a minute, and some of them could fire five..." - would a comparison with the standard achieved by other armies of this era be helpful here? (suggestion only) fixed
  • Possible typo here: "to remain in its staging army..." I assume "army" should be "area" here? fixed
  • "... the Prussians would deploy a oblique order pincer..." → "... the Prussians would deploy an oblique order pincer...". fixed
  • Possible missing word here: "...Prussian infantry had been on its feet for 16 hours..." → "The Prussian infantry had been on its feet for 16 hours..."? fixed
  • Repetitive prose here: "commander of the Puttkamer Hussars, lay among the dead.[44][45] Among the dying..." ("among the dead" and then "among the dying" in close proximity). Perhaps reword one instance? Among the dying makes sense to me--those guys were soon to be dead, but hadn't died yet.
  • I made a few changes / copy-edits etc [48]. Pls review and feel free to revert anything I might have botched.
  • Otherwise this looks in very good shape to me. Anotherclown (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2017 (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 Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Norwich War Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

Norwich War Memorial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Yes, another war memorial. Not the most imposing design, but a relatively intricate one. It has moved around a bit during its history and was sadly neglected in the early 21st century but thankfully restored and now takes pride of place. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just two minor points from me in another excellent article:

  • As this was unveiled in 1927, it is obvious that at least part of "The dates of the two world wars are inscribed..." must be a later addition. Do we know when the additional date was made?
    • Sadly not. Many war memorials were modified in this way after WWII in lieu of building a second memorial, but there rarely seem to be records of it.
  • There are a couple of places where a definite article should be used ("The architect" x 2, "The journalist", etc)
    • I don't really like using definite articles like this and I suspect it will fall out of fashion in a few years, but it hasn't yet. The title was redundant in two places anyway, but I've added it for the third.

I hope these help. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much as ever. You're fast becoming my most loyal reader! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support

Looks fine to me. Some quibbles:

  • The use of "garden" and "gardens". Should it be singular or plural?
    • The sources use them interchangeably but I've gone with "garden" consistently.
  • Should Market Place be capitalised? If it's the name of the street, why the "the"?
    • Good point; it is the name of the street, so I've removed the definite article.
  • "A row of eight ornamental lamp-posts stands along either side of the memorial itself, one of which is a later replacement." This is really jarring. We suddenly jump into the present, and then this bit from the past. Any idea when it was replaced?
Comment

In Australia, the War memorials eschew religious imagery because the Catholic Church would not permit its members to participate in religious services of other denominations. This was repealed by Vatican II, but it was much too late by then.

Cheers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Most of the smaller ones in Britain are overtly religious (usually a cross with a Bible verse in the inscription); with bigger city memorials it depends a lot on the architect and the client. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • With apologies for the delay, some thoughts... (hopefully useful ones!)
    • No apology necessary. Thanks very much for having a look!
  • "It was designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens, the last of his eight cenotaphs erected in England. " - would "to be erected" be more natural?
    • Works for me.
  • "the construction of a war memorial before he left office." - I'd argue that "war" is superfluous here
    • Fair enough.
  • " It takes the form of a low cenotaph (empty tomb) atop a screen wall" - you've already mentioned cenotaph earlier in the paragraph, so worth moving the bracketed text there (or just relying on the wikilink)
    • Does this work better?
  • "The memorial was moved from its original location outside the Guildhall..." - this is already mentioned in the preceding paragraph, so felt like repetition
    • Trimmed.
  • "The structure on which the garden is built was found to be unstable in 2004. As a result, the memorial was closed off pending repairs for seven years, during which time it fell into disrepair. Repair work began in 2008 and was completed in 2011" - presumably it well into disrepair between 2004 and 2008 then, rather than the whole seven years? (reading on, Martin Bell is complaining about it in 2007, so you could say, "By 2007..." I suppose)
    • Reworded this a little.
  • "In 2015, Lutyens' war memorials were declared a "national collection" and all were granted listed building status or had their listing renewed." - could this general statement be turned into a statement about this specific memorial? (which didn't have its listing renewed or status change etc.) - e.g. "In 2015, the memorial was declared part of a "national collection" of Lutyens war memorials." or something like that?
    • Good idea. How's this? If we can come up with a form of words we both like, I'll use it in the rest of the articles.
  • Is there any way that the background could say something about Norwich and the Great War, to give context for why it was so important? (1 in 3 Norfolk men served in the war, I think, and you have the number of casualties from the town later in the article?)
    • Yes, leave this with me while I consult Smith.
  • "Norwich War Memorial is described by Historic England as being exceptional among Lutyens' war memorials." - this would work better if it explained why it was exceptional.
    • Sadly, HE don't elaborate. I don't think it adds that much so I've removed it.
  • "flambeaux" - can we wikilink (or explain)?
    • Added an explanation. Torch is the closest we've got, but it doesn't discuss use in architecture.
  • "The finishing touch to the monument" - felt informal for an encyclopaedic article. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've rewritten this as the details were slightly confused and dropped that phrase in the process.
Thanks a lot for the review! I'll come back to the outstanding points tomorrow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hchc2009: I've added this to the background. I think that was the only comment I hadn't addressed yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NB: thought the background extension was good. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hchc2009: Thanks, that was quite and interesting exercise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Great work as usual Harry. I have only the following comments:

  • " Norwich War Memorial is described by Historic England as being exceptional among Lutyens' war memorials" - can you say why here or in the final section?
    • HE don't elaborate, so not without putting words in their mouth. I've zapped it (see my response to Hchc above)
  • "several abortive attempts were made in Norwich " - can any details be provided (briefly) on the proposals other than the agriculture college?
    • None seem to have attracted any coverage; there's nothing in any of the sources.
  • "despite local objections to both Lutyens' design and to the proposed location" - what motivated these objections? Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've elaborated on this a bit.
Thanks for the comments, Nick! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My comments have now been addressed - nice work with this article Nick-D (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions / comments

  • Are all caps needed here?
The inscriptions read "OUR GLORIOUS DEAD" (above the stone) and "THEIR NAME LIVETH FOR EVERMORE" (on the Stone itself). A further inscription in smaller font on the base of the stone reads "REMEMBERING ALSO ALL OTHERS OF THIS CITY WHO HAVE GIVEN THEIR LIVES IN THE SERVICE OF THEIR COUNTRY".
It may be easier to read if the inscription is rendered in title case, i.e. "Our Glorious Dead..."
Personally, I don't think title case is easier to read than allcaps, and since the original is in allcaps and all the sources use allcaps, I think we should stick with that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first para in the lead seems quite long long. Suggest splitting up into two paras for readability. Could also be streamlined as:
Now: Norwich War Memorial (also known as Norwich City War Memorial or Norwich Cenotaph) is a First World War memorial above the market in Norwich in Eastern England. Unveiled in 1927, it originally sat outside the Guildhall and was moved to its present location in 1938. It was designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens, the last of his eight cenotaphs to be erected in England.
Suggested: Norwich War Memorial (also known as Norwich City War Memorial or Norwich Cenotaph) is a First World War memorial n Norwich in Eastern England. Designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens, it was unveiled in 1927. Originally located in front of the Norwich Guildhall, the memorial was moved to its present location above the Norwich Market in 1938.... (also unpiped for readers who may not be familiar with the Norwich landmarks).
I believe that the statement "was unveiled by a local veteran on 9 October 1927" could be dropped as the date was mentioned earlier. Along these lines, I believe that lead can be shortened considerably, leaving a few brief paragraphs, since the article itself is not that long. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to keep repeating "Norwich". If we've told the reader the memorial is in Norwich, I think it's reasonable to assume that the guildhall and the market are also in Norwich, rather than remind them that they're in Norwich for the third time in two sentences (I'm not that familiar with the city myself; I went there once, but that was about 15 years ago now). I have, though, (sort of) followed your suggestion for simplifying and paring down the lead. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll get to these soon! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: Thanks for looking! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All the three images File:The_War_Memorial_outside_Norwich_City_Hall_(geograph_2740266).jpg, File:War_memorial_in_the_Garden_of_Remembrance,_Norwich_-_geograph.org.uk_-_357681.jpg and File:The_War_Memorial_outside_City_Hall_in_Norwich_(geograph_2488759).jpg, are appropriately licensed. Also there is no problem of Freedom of Panorama, because as per Section 62 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is broader than the corresponding provisions in many other countries, and allows photographers to take pictures of buildings, and sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship (if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public). Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyvm! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:43, 14 April 2017 (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 TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Tube Alloys[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Tube Alloys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The British wartime nuclear weapons project Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support As with High Explosive Research, Tube Alloys has just been GA promoted so it is difficult to find much in the way of suggestive comments that don't amount to nit-picking. But, to nit-pick:
  • Alt-tags might be desirable for the images.
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Post-War I think "The Special Relationship" could be "the Special Relationship".
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also under Post-War, this sentence seems to contain an incomplete paranthetical expression: "In April 1950 an abandoned Second World War airfield, RAF Aldermaston in Berkshire was selected as the permanent home for what became the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment (AWRE)". I think there may need to be a common after "Berkshire".
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeping with the Special Relationship, this term is wikilinked three times in the article, while MOS:DUPLINK would suggest it should only appear once after the lede. (IOW, it might be appropriate to cull the final wikilink to the Special Relationship.)
    The duplicate link checker doesn't find anything. "Special Realtionship" is linked only in the lead and the Post-War paragraph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These things aside, this is a great article! DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Suport, mostly nitpicks. This another excellent article:

  • While it recommended that while a pilot separation plant be built in Britain, the production facility should be built in Canada. Is the second "while" a typo?
    checkY Just me fumbing for the right wording. Deleted the first "while". Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly there was no majority agreement upon to move forward with it
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • agreement that “ordinary” gaseous diffusion straight quotes per the MoS
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • per diem of uranium-235 why use the Latin if it's not necessary?
    English grammar. "Per" being Latin should be followed by the Latin word, if there is one. eg per cent, per diem, per annum. If there isn't, then there is no proposition eg per kilometre, per battalion Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • would cost about £5,000,000 To build? To run (per day/month/year)?
    checkY To build. He estimated that it would cost £1,500,000 per year to run, in which time it would consume £2,000,000 of uranium and other raw materials. Added. The estimate was way out by the way; the Capenhurst plant cost £14,000,000 to build. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was only a minor setback due to the fact that Maybe I'm just a snob but I really hate the construction "due to the fact that", perhaps due to the fact that (winces!) it uses four words where one will do.
    checkY Oh very well then. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very early experiments were carried out by Is there an easy way to re-phrase that in the active voice?
    checkY I can try. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • plutonium bomb would lead to proposed premature detonations proposed premature detonations?
    checkY Stray word. Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • he wanted to make sure that the relationship between the United States and Great Britain the links to the countries seem unnecessary but regardless the GB article is about the island rather than the country
    checkY Removed. I am constantly getting rid of these. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the name "Tube Alloys"? Does it mean something? Was it chosen for a reason? Or would any suitably obscure title do?
    The article says: Anderson and Akers came up with the name Tube Alloys. It was deliberately chosen to be meaningless, "with a specious air of probability about it" Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. Comfortably meets the A-class criteria in my opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Bounder[edit]

Leaning heavily towards support at the moment.

The MAID committee.
  • "MAUD is assumed by many to be an acronym" is a bit clunky (and raises the question of who makes the assumption). A slight re-phrasing would work well.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Regardless of how crazy it seemed" is not encyclopaedic phrasing and should be re-drafted.
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Isotopic separation
  • I have no idea what "a chemist shielded in Britain" means
    checkY Me neither. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quebec agreement
  • Is there a reason "any post-war advantages of an industrial or commercial nature" is in italics?
    checkY Quotation. Replaced italics with quotation marks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done to the end of the Quebec agreement: more to follow soon. – The Bounder (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Only a few more British English tweaks in the last section, so happy to support now. Nice article. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Comments
    • An external link check shows three websites may be out of order, please advise.
      301 and 302 are rarely serious. One was wrong; set to the archive. Removed the URL from the journal so it avoids the 302, but it still goes to the same location. The BBC site is okay; it does a pass off of incoming requests for load-sharing purposes. Left as it is. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image in the post war section has a caption leading off with a colon, is there some reason for that? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:07, 12 April 2017 (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 TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Curtis P. Iaukea[edit]

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk)

Curtis P. Iaukea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I have found this subject to be such an interesting figure the more I researched into him. He served as an important court official and military officer during the monarchy, provisional government and republic of Hawaii. I am confident with some suggestions and extra nudges I can get to A-Class quality. KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditionally Support: A very good and thorough article generally free from typographic or grammar errors and with excellent use of WP:RS and free-use images. A few minor issues: (1) per WP:LEADLENGTH articles of this length should be two paragraphs, (2) not all of the images have WP:ALT text, (3) is use of the word "administration" correct terminology for the Hawai'ian royal government (it may be, I don't know, but I've only seen this word used in presidential systems), (4) in the sentence that says "he was appointed Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to Great Britain" - the title is more commonly invoked as "ambassador" and the full and formal use may confuse readers, (5) there are some grammar errors as follows:
  • uncle Kaihupaʻa to be raise as in the the Hawaiian
  • broke his foot in process saving him
  • he noted, "Of the more ("of" should not be capitalized here)
  • Each units were subject to call for active service when necessary.
  • he decided continued to work for the two subsequent
DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DarjeelingTea: Let me know if this addresses all your concerns. I'm retaining the use of the ambassadorial titles because it was important in the 19th century post Congesss of Vienna era since it reflects international rank and status..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does! DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Bounder[edit]

Interesting article on a subject I knew nothing about previously. I made some very minor adjustments here, which I think are probably straightforward, but some additional comments for you to consider below:

  • You only need one 'also' in "He also held numerous important positions ... also"
  • Maybe a footnote to explain what the aliʻI class is, to save having to go off to a separate article
  • Added a parentheses after first mention.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure of the correct grammar in American English, but in British English it would be "he was sent to an Anglican boarding school" (or "he was sent to boarding school").
  • I would give readers a clue who the "notable classmates" were (and drop the "notable" too), along the lines of "included Samuel Nowlein and Robert Hoapili Baker, both of whom were politicians in later life". (Or whatever they turned out to be)
  • Again, a brief footnote to explain what a kāhili is
  • To me that just seems extraneous.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had no idea what a "kāhili" was and had to leave the article to find out. There is always a danger that once people click away they won't return. Your call on it, but this isn't a term that people are going to understand or be able to guess at. - The Bounder (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "awaiting for an assignment from the king" should either be "awaiting an assignment from the king" or "waiting for an assignment from the king"
  • The "in 1874" in the sentence "This unit was a voluntary military regiment originally headed by King Kalākaua in 1874" is a bit clumsy if "originally" is there. You could re-draft it along the lines "When King Kalākaua formed the unit in 874, he…" etc
  • Is the "and etc" part of the title? If not, get rid of it and say that the posts included, then the list
  • Change. There are too many to mention so I just mentioned the more important positions.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was his title "Secretary of the Foreign Office" or "Secretary of Foreign Affairs" – I'm a bit confused
  • No it is just that. It was an assistant position to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should use the correct title once, and lower case for the one that isn't the title. Having two things that look like formal titles is confusing. - The Bounder (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops. I did not notice the second usage. Thanks. Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you may need to tweak "the court tor the defunct monarchy" – I'm not sure that makes sense as it stands.

I hope these help. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bounder: Let me know if there is anything else.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a couple of points - one needs action, the other is for you to consider. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Nice article and, from a prose point of view, I support. I have not searched for additional sources, reviewed the ones used, or checked image licences, etc. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • after Rev. Lyons' son I believe the MoS would have this as simply "Lyons", not "Rev. Lyons"
  • Likewise Colonel Iaukea was created
  • after his shyness after usually means "named for"; perhaps "in respect of" or similar would work better here?
  • However, these plans were never realized Do you really need the "however"? For reasons I don't fully understand, some people really object to the word "however", but you're not really contradicting anything.
  • According to the military act of 1886 Is that a piece of legislation? In which case shouldn't it be the Military Act?
  • commander and generalissimo.[32][33][34][35][36] Do you really need five references there?
  • Minister of Foreign Affairs William Lowthian Green and later his successor Walter Murray Gibson suggest "Green's successor" just for clarity.

No showstoppers. Excellent work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Addressed everything. Check diff..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with that. It's my pleasure to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

File:Charlotte K. Hanks PP-73-3-022 .jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

No file by this name exists, but you can upload it. File usage on Commons

There are no pages that link to this file.

Plus something about NoScript filtering a potential cross-site scripting (XSS) attempt, which may be the problem. But why them and not File:Dole, Soper and others (PP-28-7-010).jpg, which is accessible on Commons? Can everyone else access these troublesome images?
Have you tried changing servers or computers? I don't understand this problem either.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TomStar81[edit]

  • A link check shows that four of your websites may have issues, please check and advise.
    • I don't know what is wrong with those links. Two of them; the Ulukau links are fine and have routinely come up in two or previous GA nominations; the reviewer in those two cases seem to agree that it is a problem with the tool not the links. You can manually click on them in the article and they work perfectly fine. Fix the Iolani.org deadlink. I have no idea what to do with the BYU link. Seems the site is undergoing maintenance. I decided to remove it since it isn't necessary and exist as an offline source as well .--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your images are half alt text and half no alt text, is there a reason for that or is it just coincidence? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:15, 12 April 2017 (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 TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

HMS Neptune (1909)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

HMS Neptune (1909) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Neptune was one of the first generation of British dreadnought battleships. Before the First World War, she served as the flagship of the Home Fleet and as a testbed for an experimental gunnery director. Like the rest of the British dreadnoughts, she had an uneventful war, only firing her guns during the Battle of Jutland in 1916. Considered obsolescent, she was scrapped after the war. As usual, I'm looking for any remaining uses of AmEng and for unexplained nautical jargon in preparation for a FAC. Any help in identifying infelicitous prose would also be very helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Images appear correctly licensed.
  • No DAB links checkY
  • One of the links (http://dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/Neptune_Class_Battleship_(1909)), is dead. It appears the link was changed to (http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/H.M.S._Neptune_(1909)), which is already in a different citation.
  • Prose suggestions:
    "Neptune was accidentally rammed by the neutral merchant ship SS Needvaal in thick fog, but the battleship was only lightly damaged." Might want to say the country of the ship.
    • I would if I could find it.
      • Maybe somebody with a Miramar account could look it up? Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Currently 18 souls have Miramar access. The Needvaal was of the Netherlands, of course, but you need a source to prove it.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Requested access to Miramar.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • No joy in Miramar, Plimsol website, available issues of Lloyd's Register on Google Books or the Dutch ship website referenced on the WP:Ships reference page. Suggestions?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "although neither can be confirmed" Might want to switch can to was.
    • Analyses are still ongoing about which ship hit which during the battle, so I think that can be is better.
  • That is all my comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for looking this over.

Support Comments

  • I might suggest putting some of the design differences between Neptune and earlier designs in the lead - the first superfiring turrets in the RN is significant, for instance.
  • I think the built and commission ranges in the class portion of the infobox are redundant.
  • "Aside from participating in the Battle of Jutland in May 1916 several months later, and the inconclusive Action of 19 August" - something is missing here.
  • "Neptune became a private ship on 10 March 1914 when she was replaced by Iron Duke and rejoined the 1st BS" - some odd tense stuff going on here
  • Wouldn't she have been a private ship since 22 June 1912? Also, where'd she go between then and March 1914 (which is to say, how did she "rejoin" the 1st BS if she was still part of it?)?
    • Any clearer now?
      • Ah, I see what the issue was - she was still the fleet flagship after 22 June, just not the squadron flagship.
  • "...and the ship began a refit on 11 December." - need a citation here.
  • "After the High Seas Fleet reversed course for the first time," - can we get a time here? Especially since later in the sentence we have a "ten minutes later".
    • Had to rework this a bit, see how it reads now.
      • Works for me.
  • Same comment on dreadnoughtproject as the Lion class FAC (or wherever that was). Parsecboy (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't quite do that, but I expanded the reference to give the Admiralty order # cited in ship's page on Dreadnought Project.com. Thanks for your thorough comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Colossus class diagrams Brasseys 1915.jpg - might need a UK tag, unless Brassey's was also published in NYC - I can't bring to mind if it was or not.
    • Dunno if it was a wartime thing, but this edition was only published in London
      • Hmm, the 1913 edition credits S. W. Barnaby (Sydney Walker Barnaby, a son of Nathaniel Barnaby, I'd guess?) with the illustrations in the table of contents. I can't track down the 1915 edition, and the archive site cited for the image is blocked here at work, so I can't confirm it's the same, but I'd assume so, since the 1913 edition includes an identical illustration. According to the Wikisource page I linked, he died in 1925, so that puts it in the PD in the UK. Parsecboy (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good catch, I tend to forget which of Janes or Brasseys actually credits their sketch artists.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Brasseys are hit or miss - the older editions tend not to credit the illustrators. Parsecboy (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:HMS Neptune NH 58660.jpg - can we get a link to the source? Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • Standard offer: If desired, I will happily convert all the <ref>Friedman (2011), pp. 62–63</ref> refs into {{sfn}}. Your choice.
    • <Shudder> Thank you, but no.
      • I acknowledge that you declined. For conversational purposes only: there are four reasons to do so, but only two apply to this article. The first reason (which doesn't apply here) is to standardize the formatting. This one is actually quite nicely done. Many articles – especially longer ones – are very far from being so well-tended... The second reason, which doesn't apply here either, is that Ucucha's harv tools can help find citations without a book in the bibliography, and vice versa... The third and perhaps least important reason, which does apply, is simply to provide a clickable link from each citation to the corresponding bibliography entry. The fourth reason is that it provides a rigid system for other editors, who may come along months later, to follow paint-by-numbers. But see comment at the bottom (below).
  • This article mentions without explanation: "Around the time that the High Seas Fleet was reversing course beginning at 18:55"; Battle of Jutland says "Meanwhile, Scheer, knowing that it was not yet dark enough to escape and that his fleet would suffer terribly in a stern chase, doubled back to the east at 18:55". Could we put a few words in this article that summarizes Sheer's reason? Even "...reversed course to avoid contact.."
    • Done.
  • Pardon my ignorance, but is it conventional in relevant military literature to refer to the Hochseeflotte as the High Seas Fleet? I kept getting the Grand and High Seas mixed up (reading from bottom to top). It would be much easier to keep track if it were Hochseeflotte (in the same way Panzerwaffe is not referred to as "Armoured Force").
    • The German fleet is almost universally referred to in English-language sources as the High Seas Fleet, unlike the common use of German terms like Luftwaffe or Panzer Division from the 2nd World War.
  • "but the fleet did not participate in the ensuing Battle of Dogger Bank..." Why not? Too far away?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly, clarified. Thanks for pointing out these issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very nicely done.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For my own curiosity, is there some reason that only one image has alt text? Its not like its a deal breaker, it just strikes me as weird. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I generally ignore alt text since there's no requirement for it at FAC. So I never even noticed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2017 (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 AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Hochkirch[edit]

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

Battle of Hochkirch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...this was an important battle of the Seven Years' War, among several, and the follow up to the battle, or lack of it, meant the Austrians lost their initiatve. auntieruth (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Menzelhochkirch.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Saxonia_Museum_für_saechsische_Vaterlandskunde_I_27.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "who apparently started their days": Would "who started their days" be wrong? If so, why?
  • "On the positive side, though, Retzow's corps": I think I'd prefer "Only Retzow's corps" (if true), but it's your call.
  • This would be fabulous at FAC, I hope you'll bring it there.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • your edits are fine. I'll think about Retzow's corps. Plan is to bring this and Battle of Leuthen to FAC, but I cannot get Leuthen past GA yet. auntieruth (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by K.e.coffman

Interesting article! Minor c/e suggestions / comments:

  • The lead includes "Feldzeugmeister (Lieutenant Field Marshal) Leopold Josef Graf Daun ..." where Feldzeugmeister redirects to "General of the Branch". Later in the article the same commander is called "Field Marshal", so there's some inconsistency here.
  • took out the link to the German. Just referred to hi, as lieutenant field marshal. I'm not prepared to rewrite the other article yet.
  • "One of the greatest blunders... " sounds judgmental and / or colloquial; perhaps replace with "defeat"?
  • the historians all call it blunders.
  • Section "Prelude" could be split into two paras, for readability.
  • "...around Frederick's flank, to enclose him" -- perhaps "encircle"? Or is perhaps enclose is terminology I'm not familiar with?
  • Daun would have said "enclose"...but I've linked it to encirclement.
  • "...known today as Blood Alley (Blutgasse)... -- italics are unneeded around Blood Alley, as it's in English. Green tickY
  • "There was no one to blame but himself." -- this sounds like editorialising.
  • it is cited.
  • "The costly Austrian victory decided nothing." -- costly to the Prussians or to the Austrians? Green tickY

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruth, good o see you back around these parts. Comments:

  • I admire a concise lead (it's something I struggle with), but do you think one fairly short paragraph might be a little too concise?
  • LOL. Expanded slightly
  • I'd love to see a modest background section here. The prelude section sets the scene nicely but the reader shouldn't have to go somewhere else to find out what the Seven Years' War was all about ("the balance of power in Europe", like just about every other war in Western Europe for a couple of centuries either side!) and what the Prussians and Austrians were disputing.
  • Do we know the distance between Frederick's east and west flanks? unfortunately not. I've calculated it might have been 3 miles.
  • 30,000 hand-picked troops I doubt a monarch has time to personally vet 30k soldiers; do you mean the units they belonged to were hand-picked?
  • well, how about selected?
  • his own cannons, captured by the Austrians, started to fire on his own camp. The repetition of "own" could probably be trimmed.
  • You've suggested elsewhere that your interest in this articles is related to your interest in Frederick the Great, but I wonder if that might have unduly influenced the article. Almost the entire article is written from the Prussians' perspective, covering their great loss and the effect it had on them. Now it might be that that's the approach taken by the sources given that the battle had little impact beyond the immediate victory for the Austrians, but that leads me to my next concern.
  • fixed.
  • Your bibliography is dominated by works about Frederick the Great. In half an hour's digging around the web discovered several books (example) about Austria and Maria Theresa that mention Hochkirch (mostly in passing, but possibly still worth citing for background and to satisfy our A1 and A2, "the relevant body of published knowledge"/"comprehensive, factually accurate, [...] neglects no major facts" and 1c of the FA criteria, "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", if you're heading that way). I'd also be much happier if a couple of the main texts about the Seven Years' War in general were cited.
  • Okay, updated, expanded. The mentions of Hochkirch in Austria specific books are limited, basically they say nothing new, and some of them say little at all. But I did include some other material.
  • Sorry to disagree with KEC above, but I disagree with the removal of "costly". I think it's important to point out that the battle wasn't a complete success for the Austrians: they suffered heavy casualties for what they gained (which was not a lot), the Prussian counter attacks had some success in mitigating the disaster, and the Austrians were unable or unwilling to press home their advantage. Indeed, Blanning says "that Hochkirch should have brought so little reward naturally led to sharp criticism of Daun, but not from the two people who mattered most: Kaunitz and Maria Theresa". He goes on to mention that Maria Theresa praised Daun and handsomely rewarded him, and she was still optimistic about the war. I'm not fluent with the source material like you are, I got that from a couple of hours' reading around looking for background, but those seem like details that would be useful in the article.
  • Yes she did. I had already included that.

—Hope this helps. It's an interesting subject and I ended up spending longer on it than I'd planned! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work! Everything is in order as far as I'm concerned so support, and hopefully we'll be seeing this at FAC shortly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:20, 7 April 2017 (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 AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Kragujevac massacre[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk) and 23 editor

Kragujevac massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Kragujevac massacre was one of the worst German reprisal killings carried out in the German-occupied territory of Serbia during World War II. Like others of its type, it involved the killing of 100 hostages for every German soldier killed by insurgents, and 50 hostages for every wounded German. The victims were rounded up in Kragujevac and the surrounding districts, and included 144 high-school students and their teachers. Some of the senior German officers who ordered the reprisals were tried at the end of the war, with one committing suicide while in custody. This another joint endeavour between 23 editor and I, and recently went through GAN. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Bounder[edit]

Excellent article and very little to comment on, but...

  • The aftermath section jumps around chronologically, and while the first para deals with postwar up to 2007, paragraph 3 deals primarily with 1943 and wartime events. Personally I'd run it in the order 3, 4, 2, 1, but I'll leave it to you discretion.
  • The first paragraph of the Legacy section says the park "contains the 30 mass graves", but the previous section says there are over 31 graves. Perhaps "contains 30 of the mass graves"?

Excellent work otherwise. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bounder: All done. Thanks for taking a look! 23 editor (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by K.e.coffman[edit]

More of a question:

  • The photo caption "Franz Böhme was furious when his orders were not carried out" is unclear. Which orders? Why was he furious? I believe this should be clarified or removed.
  • This caption "German public notification announcing the massacre, 21 October 1941" needs clarification as well. I don't think that the Germans would announce "the massacre". What did they announce?

K.e.coffman (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

  • A pronunciation guide to Kragujevac might be helpful
  • "completely strewn with communists" You need a reference right after the quote
  • five of the victims were only 12 years old is editorialising (as abhorrent as slaughtering 12-year-olds is). Perhaps rephrase as "the youngest were 12 years old" (assuming they are the youngest known victims)

Other than those minor points, I'm struggling to find anything to criticise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is ready for an image review. Nikkimaria would you mind having a look? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:German_Soldiers_arresting_in_1941_people_in_Kragujevac.jpg: what is the status of this work in its country of origin?
  • File:Territory_Of_The_German_Military_Commander_In_Serbia_1941-44.png: what data source(s) was used to create this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2017 (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 Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Al-Mu'tasim[edit]

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

Al-Mu'tasim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

One of the Abbasid "warrior-caliphs", al-Mu'tasim may have not had the intellectual calibre of his predecessor al-Ma'mun, but as the founder of a new capital, and of a new, militarized regime that formed the prototype of Islamic governance for centuries, he had a disproportionate impact on history. The article has been under development in stages since 2014; it passed GA in 2015, but has been rewritten and expanded since. I feel that the article covers all aspects of the reign in appropriate detail, and that it meets the A-class criteria. As the eventual goal is FA, I would appreciate any feedback on readability, need for context and/or clarifications, or any further improvements that you might suggest. Constantine ✍ 10:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PM

  • When al-Ma'mun died unexpectedly inon campaign
  • Instead of referring to him as "the future al-Mu'tasim" it would be worth restating in the Early Life section that this chap was Abu Ishaq before using the name to refer to him. It is currently a bit confusing.
    • Good point. restructured, and added a clarification of the name. Constantine ✍ 16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "October 796 (Sha'ban AH 180), or earlier, in AH 179 (i.e. spring 796 or earlier)" seems to reverse the year systems in the second bit. Suggest leading with one and sticking to it as the lead system.
  • In New elites and administration, aṭā is introduced without explanation
    • I forgot to move the explanation when I restructured the article. Good catch. Constantine ✍ 16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This measure was probably intended
  • the in-text attribution is a bit non-standard. Suggest "who, according to C. E. Bosworth, was "always one of al-Mu'tasim's closest advisers and confidants" " Same with Kennedy and Tayeb El-Hibri
  • "and trytried to shore up the finances"
  • Mazyar and Wasif are introduced in the body without explanation
  • more to come, down to Foundation of Samarra Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • subsequent mentions of Caliph al-Mutawakkil could probably just be al-Mutawakkil
  • link Umayyad
  • suggest "After two weeks, however, taking advantage of a short truce for negotiations requested by one of the Byzantine commanders of the breach"
  • probably mention that Bosworth is an Orientalist when he is first mentioned
  • add the oclc for Vasiliev
  • add date of death of Droysen to the author field of File:Arabische Eroberung 2.jpg to prove the licence
    • Done, and added name and date of original work to caption as well. Constantine ✍ 16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • images are all appropriately licensed and captioned.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67, thanks for taking the time. I've fixed the troublespots. Could I bother you for a more general review on the article's structure and content? The subject is complex, and I wavered long between a chronological and thematic presentation, and I would like some opinions on what could or should be improved. Best, Constantine ✍ 16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually like the way you've done it, it captures themes but provides a good chronology too. Not an easy task with such a complex character. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • "Al-Mu'tasim continued many of his brother's policies, like the partnership with the Tahirids and the support for Mu'tazilism and the miḥna, backed by the powerful chief qādī, Ahmad ibn Abi Duwad." - I think the last bit about Duwad could go, which could free up some room for a bit of context on the rest. I had no idea what Mu'tazilism or the mihna were without clicking the links, so something along the lines of "...the support of the Mu'tazilist doctrine and the mihna, the persecution of opponents of the doctrine."
  • Some Arabic terms are untranslated, but many others are given as translations of English (i.e., "kunya", but "slave (mamlūk or ʿabid)", etc.). Can you standardize how these are presented?
    • It is not so straight-forward. "kunya" for instance is commonly translated as "teknonym", but for the average reader, the one is probably equally as obscure as the other. Later on, at "referred to as slaves (mamlūk or ʿabid), but rather as mawālī ("clients" or "freedmen") or ghilmān ("pages")", the purpose is to highlight the fact that they are not called "slaves", and then mention which specific terms are used for them. Generally I feel standardization to be unnecessary and even counter-productive in such cases. Constantine ✍ 09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This strengthened of the position of the Turks" - think the first "of" needs to go
  • Some publisher locations are fully spelled out (eg: Albany, New York) but others are abbreviated (Cambridge, MA). Parsecboy (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot Parsecboy. Any further comments, as to style, detail comprehensibility? Constantine ✍ 09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing else that jumped out at me. I think the thematic choice works well here, by the way. Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, I was a bit worried about that. Cheers and thanks, Constantine ✍ 10:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

CommentsSupport. This is about 900 years before any bits of history that I'd consider myself well-read on, so take these with a pinch of salt, and bear in mind that I might not be able to offer much on the substance.

  • In the second paragraph of the lead, you have a "despite" and a "however" in quick succession. That's quite a lot of contradiction. Also, the use of "despite" in that context (Despite his own disinterest in literary pursuits) suggests his disinterest has been discussed earlier in the article, which could confuse the reader.
  • Second paragraph of "Formation of the Turkish guard", can we specify what "the sources" referred to are?
    • I've clarified them as "Arabic historical sources", it would be pointless to list them all by name. Constantine ✍ 09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another image or two in the first half of the "caliphate" section, if there are any that would be appropriate, would be nice to break up the text and make the article more visually appealing.
    • The lack of images is not by choice; I am constantly on the look-out for some suitable (and suitably licensed) material, but have not had much luck here. There is little photographic material on contemporary art, and modern depictions (like the excellent images of Angus McBride) are copyrighted. Constantine ✍ 09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • was lucky enough not to suffer further punishment "Lucky enough" could be seen as editorialising.
    • The remark comes from Kennedy (in adapted form). Given that departing officials were usually imprisoned and tortured at the time, he was indeed lucky, but I did not want to digress into a discussion of such practices here. Constantine ✍ 09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the words of Hugh Kennedy I think "Kennedy" will suffice at this point; he's been mentioned several times now
    • I've trimmed down some of the occurrences of the first name, where he is mentioned frequently. Constantine ✍ 09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • God-guided imām to interpret Imam is a well-known term in English; I don't think we need the italics or the diacritic (this probably also applies to Hajj and jihad as well)
    • You are probably right. Nevertheless, I still feel a need to distinguish between the modern/colloquial use of "imam" (Muslim 'priest') and the more nuanced, technical meanings of the term for a 9th-century audience. The "God-guided imām" is not any "imam", but the head of the community of believers, the imam-Caliph, in a very specific theological and political sense. I've simplified the other two, though. Constantine ✍ 09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "acquired the reputation of being one of the warrior-caliphs of Islam" Do we need a quote for this fairly simple statement? If so, it needs to be attributed in-text.
  • all male prisoners were executed and the rest If they were all executed, there wouldn't be a "rest"
  • In general, this an excellent and very well-written article but it's a relatively long one (6,700 words) and I wonder if it doesn't stray off-topic a little in places. For example, the second paragraph under "Formation of the Turkish Guard" looks like most of the detail wold better suited to an article on the Turkish Guard, rather than the biography of its creator, "Rise of the Turks" looks like it could be consolidated to focus on Al-Mu'tasim's role in the events, "Founding of Samarra" contains a lot of detail that's not directly related to Al-Mu'tasim, etc. Some context is of course helpful for readers who aren't familiar with the history, but too much can be off-putting. You can always use hatnotes like {{main}} and {{see also}} to signpost readers to additional details elsewhere.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HJ Mitchell and thanks for taking the time to review this. On the last comment, you are partly right; but Mu'tasim's reign is a point of divergence, and his policies and their impact need to be discussed in some depth. Almost every scholarly treatment of the reign also devotes some time to treating these issues. I've kept them as brief as possible, but in "Founding of Samarra" for instance, a discussion is necessary on its relationship with Baghdad or the urban landscape and the association of quarters with prominent officials and cantonment areas for army regiments, because Mu'tasim himself set the pattern for it. Samarra is an expression in urban form of Mu'tasim's regime. Ditto for the Turkish Guard, which was shaped by Mu'tasim and in turn shaped his regime. Particularly due to the role Afshin played in the reign and the opposition of the Arab-Iranian elites, I simply cannot avoid a discussion of the ethnic and social origin and composition of the Guard. On other issues, like Mu'tazilism, or the cultural renaissance, that were begun by Ma'mun, I have indeed restricted coverage to Mu'tasim's role in them. If you have any further comments or suggestions I'd be glad to have them. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If you've stayed true to your sources then you've probably done the right thing. If it were my article, I'd be inclined to use hatnotes and try to trim a few hundred words to hold the reader's attention on Al-Mu'tasim, but that's just a difference of writing style. I' happy with everything else, so I have no qualms about supporting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, once again. Best, Constantine ✍ 11:44, 2 April 2017 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

S-50 (Manhattan Project)[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

S-50 (Manhattan Project) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Manhattan Project's isotope separation project using thermal diffusion. Passed over in favour of more practical methods, it eventually played an important part. The article was deleted back in 2006, but subsequently restored. I recently expanded it and took it to GA. When I went looking for images, I found many of the ones you see here on Commons, but uncategorised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support As this recently passed GA it's a struggle to find much room for improvement. Grammar and sourcing look good. The article is broad, impeccably referenced and well-illustrated. There are no broken external links or DAB issues. The only thing I'll say is the article could benefit from adding ALT tags to the images. DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and image review I did a light c/e of the prose and closely reviewed this article for GAN last month. I believe it meets the A-Class criteria, including that the images are appropriately licensed and have useful captions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • the Army and Navy also played a part. Army and navy aren't proper nouns, so in this context I'm pretty sure the MoS would have it as "army and navy" not "Army and Navy"
    No, they are proper nouns. Here, the United States Army and Navy are meant. It would be different if were were referring to a generic navy, but here we are referring to the specific one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you're referring to a particular army and navy, but we only treat them as proper nouns when we refer to them by their full title. I double-checked the MoS and that is indeed the guidance of MOS:MILTERMS (point 2). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources do it differently, but far be it from me to argue with the MOS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally find arguing with the MoS time-consuming and futile, even if I happen to mostly agree with it on this point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • he was able to achieve some separation That doesn't sound like he was entirely successful, but the next sentence has him moving onto uranium, so presumably he was satisfied with the results he got?
    Added that he achieved a separation factor of 1.2. The point is though that there is a big difference between potassium and uranium. The difference between the weights of the isotopes of potassium (41 / 39 ≈ 1.05) is much greater than that of uranium (238 / 235 ≈ 1.01). Note also that uranium enriched by 20 per cent is only enriched to 0.86 per cent uranium-235; you need 12,500 percent to get to 90 per cent urnamium-235 (HEU). Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • albeit on his advice, that the Navy was to be excluded from the Manhattan Project On Bush's advice? What was the rationale for excluding the navy (a footnote might be the best way to deal with that)? And navy shouldn't be a proper noun (same throughout).
    The article already explains that Bowen and Bush did not get along because Bowen felt that OSRD was diverting funds away from the NRL. Added that Bush preferred dealing with Stimson. When it comes to Roosevelt, I recall a story about how one person came in to see him, and Roosevelt listened to his arguments and said: "You're absolutely right." This was followed by a meeting with another man who gave contrary arguments, and Roosevelt listened to his arguments and told him: "You're absolutely right." Then Eleanor came in and said that the two men had said completely contradictory things, and they couldn't possibly both be right. And Roosevelt said: "Eleanor, you're absolutely right." Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other sites were canvassed, and it was decided to build a new pilot plant at the Naval Boiler and Turbine Laboratory (NBTL) at the Philadelphia Navy Yard,[37] where there was space, steam and cooling water, and, perhaps most important of all, engineers with experience with high-pressure steam,[38] and the cost was estimated at only $500,000. That's a bit of a run-on sentence
    Split sentence in two. My sister, by the way, is the master of the run-on sentence, making them seem quite natural. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another fine article. You're not leaving me a lot to criticise! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My concerns have been addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:05, 3 April 2017 (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 HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of protected cruisers of Italy[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

List of protected cruisers of Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This list comprises all of the protected cruisers built for the Italian Navy, from the early 1880s to the 1910s. It's been done for some time, but I haven't gotten around to bringing it through ACR until now. It's the capstone for this project. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

  • No DABs, external links OK.
  • I'm not sure that I buy US-PD for File:Italian cruiser Dogali.jpg as there's no publication info. I think the PD-USGov-Military-Navy tag is probably better since we can't prove publication before 1923.
    • Well, we don't know for sure who took the picture. See if the tag I changed it to seems fine to you. Parsecboy (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, it's good, but I'm still OK with the Navy tag as it could well have been taken by a naval attache or at least purchased by one from a commercial photographer.
  • I'm not sure what to do about File:Varo RN Basilicata.jpg as no publication info casts the PD-1923 tag in doubt. It's clearly out of copyright in Italy, so that part's OK. Time to call in a real expert. @Nikkimaria:
  • {{PD-1996}} is quite likely to apply, but we really need a publication date to confirm. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was my assumption - until I can find a date of publication, which will likely be impossible, I'll just pull the photo. Thanks Nikki.
  • Watch your conversions for rounding errors.
    • I think these should all be fixed now - let me know if you see anything still wrong
      • All fixed, but a conversion is needed for Piemonte's guns.
        • Done.
  • Link squadron, North Africa, Arabian Peninsula, gunfire support, distilling ship, ship-breakers, observation balloon, gun battery, Australia, blockade, boiler.
    • All done
  • Explain /30 in armament or delete it.
    • Deleted, unnecessary in a list like this
  • Need a comma after scrap for the Etnas
    • Fixed
  • Is the bow section of Puglia still in existence? And shouldn't museum be capitalized in the Vittoriale degli italiani museum?
  • Cambridge MA: Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-306-81311-4 comma after Cambridge. Suggest spelling out states for those foreigners unfamiliar with US state abbreviations.
    • Removed the states instead.
  • J. J. Keliher & Co. XLVII. 1903. 8007941 Tell the reader that this last bit is an OCLC number.
    • Good catch
      • You must have gotten distracted ;-( Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, I fixed one and didn't see the other.
  • Standardize your treatment of ISBNs; some have dashes and others don't.
    • Fixed
  • Add an ampersand for Marinelli in the bibliography.
  • CommentsSupport
    • All tool checks ok, inc the Earwig tool which didn't detect any issues with close paraphrase / copy vio. etc [50] (no action req'd).
    • Some minor inconsistency in use of both "World War I" and "First World War".
      • Fixed.
    • Slightly repetitive prose here: "Dogali was originally designed by William Henry White of Armstrong Whitworth for the Greek Navy; she was originally..." (use of originally twice in one sentence seems redundant - perhaps consider rewording?)
      • How does swapping the second "originally" for an "initially" work?
    • Some minor inconsistency in presentation of date ranges, with the article using both "1911–12" and "1907–1908".
      • Fixed.
    • I made some minor changes here [51].
      • Those look fine to me.
    • Otherwise this looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Anotherclown: - can you revisit your comments and let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to fix? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Added my support now, sorry for the delay I forgot all about this one. Anotherclown (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by PM67

  • there are some alpha-sorting tweaks needed in the References section. Klein and Marinelli at least. A couple have an earlier book by the same author listed after a later book, which jars for some reason. Great work, this list shows the development of Italian protected cruisers in an easy to understand way. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks PM, I think I have them sorted out now (I didn't realize I had Koburger in there twice!) Parsecboy (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2017 (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 HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

St Vincent-class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

St Vincent-class battleship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

These three British battleships were ordered at a time when the government in power was interested in reduced expeditures on the Royal Navy and showed only minor improvements over their predecessors. They spent their entire careers based in home waters and did not have eventful careers during World War I. They only saw combat during the Battle of Jutland. One of them was destroyed by magazine explosions while at anchor in 1917. The two remaining ships were effectively obsolete by the end of the war and were sold for scrap in the early 1920s. As always, I'm looking for remnants of AmEng and unexplained jargon. I'm also interested in readers' opinions on the balance in the narrative of the sisters' activities; too much detail, not enough? They literally did very little other than training during the war, so there's not a whole lot of excitement to add, although I can probably expand the training bits more if necessary. As the Grand Fleet generally did things en masse during the war, this will be the model for all the other battleship-class articles, so it needs to be done well. Therefore I'd like reviewers to pay a particular attention to the service section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:HMS Vanguard (1909).png - needs a source, and this appears to be where it came from. I'm not entirely sold on the usability of the photo given what little we know about it (Nikki might be able to give us a better answer), but it may be better to just use a different image with clearer status (like this one).
    • Swapped in a better pic.
  • File:HMS Vanguard aft guns USNHC NH 52619.jpg - not necessary, but it looks like the version available on the NHHC's site is higher quality - you might consider uploading it.
    • Good idea, done.

Support Comments

  • I spy a "favor"
  • What were the speeds reached on sea trials?
  • I'd say the level of detail for the service history section is about right.
  • The Subsequent activity header seems to come out of nowhere - subsequent to what? On one hand, excessive subdivision isn't ideal, but there needs to be at least something else there. A "Jutland" section makes the most sense.
  • I wonder if the last section is appropriately titled - only three sentences of the final four paragraphs concern the loss of Vanguard. I might move that paragraph into the Subsequent activity section and retitle the last section as "Postwar" or something. Parsecboy (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Parsecboy:

Support Comments

  • You asked for AmEng, so there is a "favor" and "center"
  • "preceeding" should be "preceding"
  • I don't see the benefit of giving pressures in kgf/sqcm; just psi and kPa is enough
    • Actually, I see it more often in books than I do kPa, but I have no idea what's taught nowadays.
  • "back up" should be "backup"
  • "the 4th BS were in the centre" should be was
  • Were only three bodies recovered from Vanguard's explosion, or was it that Collingwood recovered three?
    • I think that there might have been a few more bodies recovered, but those 3 were just by Collingwood.

Pretty good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for looking this over and catching these little, but annoying things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7:

Comments

  • " in the first decade of the 20th century" Is their a reason 1910's is not said here?"
    • Yes, because they were built 1907–10, not in the 1910s.
  • "Although Vanguard's wreck in Scapa Flow is a war grave" It should be mentioned if a ships war grave is on par, or close to being on war, with a military cemetery, such as Arlington, it sounds like that is implied, given the way it leads to it being protected.
    • I don't understand what you mean here?
  • "The Admiralty's 1905 draft building plan" isn't draft building sort of redundant ? Unless it has some meaning in british english that i'm unaware of. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • How so? As used here, draft, AFAIK, means "tentative" in both American and British English.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this closely during GAN in February and given the above improvements, I believe it meets the A-Class criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 2 April 2017 (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 AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Bernhard[edit]

Nominator(s): The Bounder (talk)

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

Toolbox

Operation Bernhard is a fascinating tale of what could have been the Nazi's most powerful weapon of the Second World War, utterly wasted because of poor management in the confused and conflicting bureaucratic infighting in the German high command. A plan to counterfeit British currency to bring about the collapse of the strongest economy in the world was changed into a way to pay for intelligence operations (which it did), although it made some Germans extremely rich in the process. In and among the greed and mismanagement, the plan ensured the survival of around 150 concentration camp prisoners who were the ones forced to make print the money. A badly worded German order to kill them, and an engine failure of a truck, led to a last minute survival of the group, of whom one is still alive, I believe. This article has undergone a complete re-write recently and should reach the standards of A class. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

support by auntieruth[edit]

Bounder, this looks like a fascinating subject. I can see why you were interested. I'm curious as to why you've circumvented the usual processes that articles go through before they reach A class assessment: initial assessment, good article assessment, etc. Although these aren't required per se, these are recommended. The article has grammatical and punctuation issues that would have been addressed earlier if you had gone through these steps. That said, let's see what we can do....
  • This article would benefit from another edit, this time, looking at some of the repetitive sentence structures and verb uses. Principally, The forgery unit was set up in Berlin; was headed by; was under the ; So many great verbs and we are stuck with "to be" I feel a bit like Hamlet.
  • There are some "moments" of confusion, such as these two... He duplicated the chemical balance with British water to make the colours match. He used British water? Or he found out the chemical comp of British water? or....? The operation was restarted because of a change in the aims of the plan. this is just awkward.
  • It's late here, so I'll have a look at tweaking them in the morning. Thanks for pointing them out. - The Bounder (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All tweaked. The Bounder (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a vast number of comma faults By late 1940 Naujocks... s like this throughout.
  • That's not a fault in British English writing. (Some of the other punctuation issues may also be because of the differences between British and American English). – The Bounder (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be difficult, just helpful. How do you want to proceed? auntieruth (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • P.S. Also, on a side note, it would be helpful if you created a user page.
  • I don't think there's much of a need for a user page: it won't say anything interesting! :-) Many thanks for looking at the article, and I hope to deal with any further comments you may have. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL I was being polite. Some things are the same in British and American usage: placing commas after introductory phrases and commas is standard in both. I also tweaked some other phrases, and verbs that were repetitive. See my edits here I'm in favor of user pages because it shows a modicum of commitment to the project. With a red link (meaning no page) you could be mistaken for a newbie. auntieruth (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed some of the commas: they are not needed in formal British English, which is the language in which the article is written, but thank you for the other changes. I'm not a fan of user pages (and there are some long-term editors, such as User:JzG and User:Betty Logan, who still retain a red link), and they don't help articles get any better! All the best, The Bounder (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Forgednote.jpg: some issues here. First, tag needs updating to reflect that the bill is not circulating. Second, see Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Wartime_copyrights. Third, if this was a forgery and so at minimum a derivative if not an exact copy of the original note, what is the status of the original note? Copyright of forgeries is a bit of a tricky issue, given that there is by definition no originality.
    • It looks like older UK currency is not copyrighted as it falls under PD-UKGov, but I'm not sure about the rest - I'll have to have a closer look in the morning. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've tagged to show it's not in circulation. The genuine fivers from the time are out of copyright (under PD-UKGov), but I have no idea how copyright on forgeries works. Is a new copyright created by the forgery (and is it held by the Jewish prisoners, one of whom is still alive)? - The Bounder (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Logically, since there is no originality there should be no new copyright, at least as far as US law goes. I'm not aware of any policies here or on Commons that would dictate how we deal with such a situation, so I would suggest PD-UKGov with a careful explanation in the Permission field of why that tag applies. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Labers_Castle_-_South_Tyrol.jpg: since Italy does not have freedom of panorama, should include an explicit copyright tag for the building itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Nikkimaria, Does that mean adding this tag? Won't that mean the image is deleted? – The Bounder (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be deleted if you added that tag, but that's not what I meant. Think about the building as a publication - if it was erected pre-1923 it's PD-1923, if its architect died over 70 years ago it's life+70, etc - and then apply the appropriate tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harry[edit]

Nice article, and on an interesting bit of history. just a few comments and queries:

  • Why the fiver rather than a higher denomination?
  • To what extent were the Brits aware of all this? We know the ambassador heard about the plans and alerted London, but were they aware of how much currency was being produced?
    • Not really. They had the intelligence report, then a few samples made their way into the Bank's hands, but it was all guess work after that. - The Bounder (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did any or all of the forged currency from Andreas make into circulation?
  • By late 1940 Naujocks had been sacked after he fell out of favour with Heydrich "Sacked" seems a little informal to me
  • Do we know why Himmler changed the aim of the operation (and arguably reduced its scope)?
  • Do any specimens of forged notes still exist?
  • Out of curiosity, why are you not citing the two books listed as further reading? They look like works specifically about these operations, while further reading is normally used for more general works.
    • I'll deal with the other points in the morning with some edits, but the final point is coverable now. These two are both self-published sources, so dubious reliability (There is a hidden text note, should anyone look at the background text). Thank you for these comments – I hope to do them justice shortly. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • All done with the exception of the question of specimens. Yes there are, but I'll address it in line with the related comment from Wehwalt (the Bank of England / redeeming point); these can be done together, but a couple of things need checking first. I should have this done shortly. Thank you once again for your efforts. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi HJ Mitchell, this last point has now been dealt with. Thank you once again for your comments. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt[edit]

Looks good in general, just a few comments.
  • "and they were shortly liberated by the American Army." I might add a "thereafter" following "shortly"
  • "and had altered only slightly " I might toss a "been" after "had"
  • "gave the final confirmation for the operation to proceed" I might sub "final approval" for "the final confirmation".
  • "although he also assisted in the supervision of quality-checking the pound notes." I might delete "the supervision of" as it's presently a little awkward.
  • "Those working on the operation at the time" Nazis? Jews? It takes on a different tone depending on which.
  • "for his work in obtaining British secrets from the British ambassador in Ankara, Turkey." I might strike the first "British".
  • "After undergoing a denazification process, statements were produced from the forger-inmates whose lives he had been responsible for saving." Wouldn't that have been part of the process?
  • It is probably somewhere on the Bank of England's web site that they will redeem all their notes, but subject those which were counterfeited to expertising. If I recall correctly, Operation Bernhard notes (that is, counterfeits) are worth more than their purported face value, which means the Bank of England doesn't get called on much to redeem these. If you can find sources for this, it would be a useful addition.
  • "Colorado Springs, Co" Should be CO to fit with the format you've used for the other US sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for these: they are all extremely useful. I think I have dealt with them all, with the exception of the penultimate point (which is also related to something Harry Mitchell raised in the thread above). I'll do a bit of digging on this, and should have something up shortly. Thank you once again and all the best, The Bounder (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now added. Thank you once again! - The Bounder (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2017 (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 Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

High Explosive Research[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

High Explosive Research (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The third in the articles about the British nuclear weapons programmes, after Tube Alloys and British contribution to the Manhattan Project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support High Explosive Research having just, last week, passed GA review I can't really find that much to provide in feedback, other than to note this is an exceptionally well-written, well-sourced, and interesting article. A few non-critical comments:
  • Adding ALT-tags to the images, which currently lack them, might be desirable.
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second sentence under Testing "fall back" (verb) is used instead of "fallback" (noun).
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if "British Mission" should, in fact, be "British mission"?
     Done depitalised when it is not the actual title. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some disambiguation page links [52] that may need to be DABed.
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support and image review I closely reviewed this article at GAN earlier this month, and believe that it meets the A-Class criteria. I obviously checked the images at GAN, and believe the licensing is ok. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport:

  • He was an independent Member of Parliament Attlee or Anderson? (I know, but it could be read either way)
    checkY Changed to "Anderson". There are a couple of things here that I thought non-British people may find odd: that a member of the opposition has a desk in the Cabinet Office; and the notion of a university constituency. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this role he had his own office as an opposition front-bencher or his role on the committee?
    checkY Changed to As chairman of the Advisory Committee on Atomic Energy, Anderson had his own office in the Cabinet Office, and the services of its secretariat.
  • Lord Portal Do you think it worth including his rank and/or first name on first mention?
    checkY Added his rank. I don't think lords use their first names any more. Should we use Charles Portal, 1st Viscount Portal of Hungerford?
    • Debrett's would say they don't (but then Debrett's would have us refer to Sir Joseph Bloggs as "Sir Joseph", whereas our MoS would insist on "Bloggs") so I guess the full title is the only option. I'll leave it up to you whether you think it's including. If he was well known by his name, I'd lean towards including it, but if he was better known as Lord Portal I'd keep it as you have it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portal reluctantly accepted the post for a two-year term If it's not too far off-topic, why was he reluctant?
    checkY Added as he felt that he lacked administrative experience outside the Royal Air Force Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never heard the term Dorothy Dixer, and our article says it's an Aussie term.
    checkY I had no idea that you don't have them in the UK. Changed to "pre-arranged question" Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fortunately, the nickel powder used "Fortunately" could be construed as editorialising.
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 125 kg of highly enriched uranium per annum Is there an easy way to put that into context? How many bombs would it make, for example?
    checkY British designs in the late 1950s used large amounts of highly enriched uranium: 87 kg for Green Bamboo, 117 kg for Orange Herald. But a composite Blue Danube core could use 3.25 kg of Pu and 6.5 kg of HEU. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calculations of the nuclear physics were performed by Fuchs at Harwell Can we use the active voice instead?
    checkY Changed to Fuchs performed calculations of the nuclear physics involved at Harwell in 1948. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • they sailed around the Cape of Good Hope instead of traversing the Suez Canal. Was there a reason to take the scenic route? Middle-eastern politics perhaps?
    checkY The Egyptian revolution of 1952. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything to say about Britain wanting to preserve its status specifically because it was gradually losing its empire (in no small part due to American pressure)?
    checkY I've added a couple more paragraphs from Gowing & Arnold and Baylis & Stoddart. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of replies inline but I've reviewed the responses and I'm happy to support. I would have been anyway but I like to keep you on your toes since you leave me so little to criticise! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:50, 24 March 2017 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Grandslam[edit]

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk)

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

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it substantially covers Operation Grandslam, a decisive military action undertaken by troops of the United Nations Operation in the Congo that successfully quelled the Katangese secession during the Congo Crisis of the 1960s. It has already passed a GA review, and should hopefully be moved down along to the next step. I have read the A-class review guidelines and believe to the best of my knowledge that it meets most if not all the criteria. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from The Bounder

An interesting subject about which I know a tiny amount (my late father was served there as part of a secondment to the Ghanaian Army, and a close friend of the family was a mercenary on t'other side).

There is a little confusion in my mind over the language used. You seem to have US English with center, self-defense, preemptively etc, but you also have defence and a British date format. This should be consistent throughout.

  • It may be worth adding a description to "Thant sent Ralph Bunche" along the lines of "Thant sent the diplomat or negotiator Ralph Bunche" to aid the reader
  • Ditto for the Belgian Foreign Minister Paul-Henri Spaak
  • It may be worth moving the sentence "Thant informed the UN Force Commander in the Congo that napalm was to be prohibited from use in combat.[3]" to before the end of the previous section (to follow Thant's instruction to "preemptively eliminate Katangese forces")
  • I'm not sure what you mean by "Prem Chand saw to immediately carry forward.": it may be worth clarifying slightly
  • "and reached east bank of the Lufira" -> the east bank?
  • "That same day" should probably be "The same day"

That's it: nicely put together article. My review is on prose only, as I don't know enough about the subject to comment on completeness etc. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response:
  • Put his title as "Special Representative"
  • Done
  • Done, with some added context
  • Reworded as "Prem Chand decided to immediately carry forward with the UN's plans."
  • Done
  • Done
-Indy beetle (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All good, and I'm happy to now Support. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:UN_inspects_Katanga_Harvard_Airplane_Wreckage_at_Kolwezi,_Congo_1963.jpg: per the tag, we need evidence this was published in the US before 1987. Same with File:UN_Armoured_Convoy_in_the_Congo,_1963.jpg, File:UN_forces_at_the_Lufira_River.jpg, File:UN_inspects_Katanga_Vampire_Airplane_Wreckage_at_Kolwezi,_Congo_1963.jpg
  • File:J-29_Tunnan_in_UN_service.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response:
  • I have sent an email to the United Nations authority for rights on images and materials for clarification. I await their response.
    • I have successfully corresponded with the UN photo library, but for some reason, after relatively quick responses, they've failed to return my last email. I still await a formal response, but I have doubt that those photos will be free for use. @Nikkimaria: I have removed them and found one replacement photo of Swedish peacekeepers during the operation that is PD. The other photos cannot be used.
  • I believe I have added an appropriate US PD tag.
  • I have also added one additional photo which should work fine.
-Indy beetle (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is an interesting and well developed article. I have the following comments:

  • Give the date range when this military operation took place in the first sentence. Ideally this should also form part of an initial para rather than a single para sentence
  • Note in the current second para what the nature of the UN's involvement was - eg, diplomatic efforts, as well as the deployment of a peacekeeping force
  • "In December 1961 the UN initiated Operation Unokat" - what did this aim to achieve?
  • Note the countries which provided forces for UNOC, and the scale of these commitments earlier - the presence of Indians is first noted when they're potentially withdrawing, and the Swedish fighter aircraft when they first go into combat. An outline order of battle would be particularly helpful.
  • Similarly, information on the size and/or capabilities of the Katangese forces would be very useful.
  • "On 24 December 1962 Katangese forces openly attacked Ethiopian troops" - where the Ethiopians there as part of the UN force?
  • "Radio intercepts revealed..." - please note to whom this was revealed
  • Please explain what the overall plan for Operation Grandslam was either in the 'Prelude' or 'First phase' section (were multiple phrases always intended?)
  • "a Sikorsky helicopter" - can you say what type and who was operating it?
  • When exactly did the UNOC forces withdraw, and were they replaced by another UN mission? (it seems common these days for military dominated UN missions to be replaced by police or aid dominated UN missions as the situation is stabilised)
  • "Rhodesian operatives assisted in smuggling the gold reserves out of the country" - Southern or Northern Rhodesians? (Southern, I presume)
  • "Many Katangese people hoped the UN would, in light of their role in ending the original secession, help resolve the situation" - did the UN ever intervene in this area again?

Please note that I'm going to be travelling over the next week, so it may take me a while to respond to your responses. Nick-D (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support With one minor comment below, I'm now happy to support this article's promotion. Great work with it. Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response:
  1. Done. Also mildly revised with added sentence "The Katangese forces were decisively defeated and Katanga was forcibly reintegrated into the Congo."
  2. Added "In addition to a large body of troops (20,000 at its peak strength), a civilian mission was brought in to provide technical assistance to the Congolese government."
  3. Added "to ensure ONUC personnel's freedom of movement and reassert their authority in Katanga."
  4. I've done my best to address this. The information available is quite limited. I have yet to find a source that even specifies how many UN troops were in Katanga at the time. The best I have is what Dorn provides about air strength.
  5. Done. Listed under "Opposing forces" section.
  6. Changed troops to "peacekeepers". The Ethiopians were indeed there along with ONUC.
  7. Done. Now reads "Radio intercepts revealed to the UN..."
  8. Done. I'm not really sure what the intention on operational phases was, though it does seem to me that the first phase was more structured than the second phase. What I mean to say is, I think the first one had concrete goals for ONUC to achieve while the second was more of a follow up to ensure the defeat of Katanga's forces. So I would conclude that ONUC commanders probably assumed they would go through multiple phases, but left the latter stages of the operation open to developments.
  9. Mockaitis does not specify what variant of Sikorsky helicopter it was or who was operating it. However, it is known that in 1961 UN forces were using the S-55 in Katanga, as shown here. They were still in ONUC's use in 1964, as evidenced here. There is also this UN photo dated 01 January 1963 (probably generalized) showing UN troops trying to cross the Lufira river with the assistance of a helicopter...could be an S-55. Still, this is mostly original research and I'm not prepared to explicitly state that in the article. Perhaps I should just wikilink it?
  1. Perhaps just refer to a "helicopter" or similar Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Added section titled "Fate of ONUC". Might add more information, should it be forthcoming or necessary.
  2. Othen does not specify.
  3. Well, in short, yes. I think I've put an adequate explanation in the article. As note, the UN returned to the Congo to manage the Kivu Conflict and only as an aside started mediating the effects of the the Katanga insurgency.
-Indy beetle (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harry[edit]

  • causing United Nations Secretary General U Thant to authorize a retaliatory offensive Wouldn't this require a new security council resolution?
  • Reinforced by recently amassed air power From where?
  • United Nations peacekeepers successfully completed can they really be called "peacekeepers" in this context since they're no longer holding the middle ground between two warring parties?
  • Would it be better to link the Congo Crisis using {{main}} in the background section, rather than the easter egg link in the prose?
  • Who were the main troop contributors to ONUC?
  • Is it worth giving Dewan Prem Chand's nationality?

That's as far as the "opposing forces". I'll be back later with more. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response
  1. Well, no. United Nations Security Council Resolution 157 passed on 21 February 1961 authorized ONUC to "prevent civil war". It was under that one that Operation Rumpunch and Operation Morthor were launched. Another resolution, United Nations Security Council Resolution 169, (the final one issued for ONUC) passed on 24 November 1961 at the request of Thant meant to clear up any ambiguities of their mandate. It reaffirmed ONUC's ability to detain and deport foreign military personnel and mercenaries with force, described Katanga's secessionist activities as illegal, and declared the UN's support for the central government of the Congo in its efforts to "maintain law and order and national integrity". It was under this resolution that Operation Unokat was conducted. The provision to "prevent civil war" was used by the UN to justify their intervention to help the central government eliminate the Stanleyville government. Perhaps this should be brought up in the background?
  2. Revised as "Reinforced by aircraft from Sweden".
  3. Well, this could get contentious. It appears most sources just refer to them as "troops". This matter of the role they were playing in the Congo becomes a ground for debate. Propaganda produced by the Katangese government deliberately and rhetorically questioned how "peacekeepers" could be more or less waging a war against them. From the UN's perspective, as evidenced by the security council resolutions brought up above, ONUC was suppressing an illegitimate organization that was causing civil war and jeopardizing the territorial integrity of the Congo. From Thant's view, Katanga was disrupting peace, law, and order and it was ONUC's job to stop them. It's really just semantics.
  4. Done
  5. India and Sweden, to name a few. It's rather cumbersome to pinpoint which ones were of great importance outside of a specific period of time (like this select operation) because the numbers fluctuated so often. Some countries that had contributed troops early on in ONUC had withdrawn them by the end of 1962. Unless you think it's worth pursuing this?
  6. Now where he is first mentioned, it says "Lieutenant General Dewan Prem Chand of India".

-Indy beetle (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming (noting that I'm happy with your responses above):

  • Kennedy offered to supply the UN with American fighter jets to exert an "overwhelming show of strength from the air You need a reference right next to the quote per some policy shortcut.
  • India had withdrawn its Canberra bombers Was this related to India's other military commitments or do we know if there was another reason?

Only a few minor quibbles in an excellent article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response part 2:

  1. Done.
  2. Yes, you are indeed correct! Revised as "India had withdrawn its Canberra bombers in October to guard against China..."

-Indy beetle (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. Happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suppport[edit]

I'm starting to read this. It's a bit disconcerting since I remember some of this....:(

Though UN Official Conor Cruise O'Brien had announced as Morthor was underway that, "The secession of Katanga has ended," this statement was quickly realized to be premature This statement confuses me
...declared that the Belgian government would support the UN or the Congolese government should they end the Katangese secession through force ... who is they?
The same day a UN observation helicopter was fired upon and forced to land. An Indian member of the crew was mortally wounded while the rest were captured and beaten.... Katanganese fired upon it? Or someone else? Or don't we know?
UN troops strictly limited their responses to self-defence, but the attacks continued. but the attacks, or and the attacks
JFK offered to send the UN American fighter jets ... JFK offered American fighter jets to (support) the UN....
...This was shortly thereafter followed... this was followed shortly thereafter....
I made a few other suggestions, here, here and here. auntieruth (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

  1. Revised as "As Morthor was underway, Special Representative Conor Cruise O'Brien announced, "The secession of Katanga has ended." This statement was quickly realized to be premature; Katanga fought the offensive to a stalemate."
  2. Revised as "would support the UN or the Congolese government should either one end the Katangese secession".
  3. Revised as "The same day they fired upon a UN observation helicopter and forced it to land." The word "they" would be referring to the Katangese forces mentioned in the previous sentence.
  • still awkward. How about...this>

4. Removed comma between "self-defence" and "but".

  • this is still awkward. how about
Although UN troops strictly limited their responses to self-defence, the attacks continued.
Ok, fixed some of the grammar too.

5. Revised sentence: "In November United States President John F. Kennedy offered to supply the UN with American fighter jets to exert an "overwhelming show of strength from the air"." 6. Done
-Indy beetle (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2017 (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 AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

HMS St Vincent (1908)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

HMS St Vincent (1908) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

St. Vincent had a typical career for a WWI-era British dreadnought. A few shells fired at the Battle of Jutland mid-way through the war and that was all the combat she experienced. Aside from a few other unsuccessful attempts to intercept German ships, her war consisted of monotonous training in the North Sea. She was reduced to reserve after the war and was scrapped in the early 1920s. I've significantly expanded the article with more details on that monotonous training since it was promoted to GA two years ago and believe that it meets the A-class criteria. As usual, I'm looking for infelicitous prose, AmEnglish usage and any jargon that needs linking or explaining before I send this to FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Images all check out, but can we get a full citation for File:1stGenBritishBBs.tiff? Parsecboy (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean? A full bibliographic citation? Or a link to the book?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, a full citation on the image page. Parsecboy (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's proven surprisingly hard to do as it's an annual with a bunch of different entries in Worldcat. I've corrected the info to Brassey's rather than Jane's and added a link from the Internet Archive. That's generally sufficed in the past, IIRC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • That works - there's a pretty nice illustration of HMS Monarch on the frontispiece in that edition that you might be interested in too (I've already snagged the one of Kaiser). Parsecboy (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • I might add a note unpacking the "more powerful guns" bit - a casual reader might see that both classes had 12" guns and be confused. Up to you.
    • I dunno, to define that, I'd have to start talking about muzzle velocities, etc. Which I've done in the class article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was thinking a fairly basic note along the lines of "The longer gun provided a higher muzzle velocity, which improved the range it could fire shells and the ability of those shells to penetrate steel armour." Not a big deal though.
  • I might also add a line about the rising tensions in late July 1914 with a link to July Crisis
    • Excellent idea!
  • Link to Action of 19 August 1916. Parsecboy (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for catching these, including the ones that I thought were already in it!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I closely reviewed this article for GAN in December/January and consider that it meets the A-Class criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good to me. Should Norman Friedman, Andrew Gordon (naval historian), Henry Newbolt and Antony Preston be author-linked in the bibliography? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Typically, I don't think to link authors, but it's a good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2017 (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 TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of Indian naval air squadrons[edit]

Nominator(s): Krishna Chaitanya Velaga

List of Indian naval air squadrons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this list for A-Class review. With the first squadron commissioned in 1959, Indian Navy currently operates twenty-one squadrons. From the previous A-class reviews I have faced, I constructed this list with care and consistency. All the ranges are per the MOS, and also everything is referenced. Unlike the FA, FL criteria allows citations in the lead if it is not the summary of the immediate tables. So there are a few citations in the lead and all the uncited sentences are the summary of the table, in the which they are completely cited. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, nice work as usual. I have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • emdashes should be unspaced per WP:DASH. For instance, "another Sea King squadron — INAS 339 — was commissioned..." should be "another Sea King squadron—INAS 339—was commissioned..."
  • there are probably too many images in the lead, as it seems a bit cluttered
  • the header "List of squadrons" should probably just be "Squadrons"
  • per WP:LAYOUT the Commons link should be in the last section of the list, which in this case is the External links section
Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is one dab link that should be resolved: "Britain"
What is the dab in there? Britain directs to United Kingdom, it is correct. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was fixed with this edit: [53]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • in many cases the nicknames and aircraft do not appear to be cited
The end citations in "Established" column covers all the data in the row. I have changed the format of the table so that the end citations covers the entire row. The aircraft are covered by the citations for their operation period. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • some of the grammar should be revised, for instance: "The squadrons commissioned until 1971, saw action in 1971 Indo-Pakistani War, especially the ones stationed on the aircraft carrier Vikrant".
  • given that the lead does not wholly replicate the list below, I would submit that each paragraph should end with a citation to meet WP:V
@AustralianRupert: Done. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good; I've made a couple more tweaks, and have added my support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I really like the formatting of this article, but it needs some more work to reach A-class status:

  • I'm a bit concerned that globalsecurity.org is used as a reference: this isn't a reliable source.
  • Many previous discussions have concluded that it is not a RS. Given that globalsecurity.org largely copies and pastes its content from elsewhere, it should be able to be replaced. Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please list the UAV types operated by 342, 343 and 344 squadrons for consistency with the other squadrons
  • Done
  • The "role" column probably needs separate rows to make the changing role of squadrons as their aircraft changed clearer
  • There was only one such, INS 310, changed it. The others, even though the aircraft changed, the role remained the same.
  • Given that there's an "established" column, shouldn't there also be a "disbanded" column to provide the dates for the units which are no longer active?
  • All the squadrons are active.
  • It would be helpful to explain the squadron numbering conventions: it appears that frontline units are 300-series, and training units (mainly) are 500-series. Do we know why 300 and 500 were selected?
  • There is no specific reasoned mentioned in the sources
  • "The concept of naval aviation in India started with the establishment of Directorate of Naval Aviation at Naval Headquarters (NHQ) in early 1948" - surely it was a legacy of the Royal Navy, which had aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean for most of the period after 1942.
  • Yes, the Royal Navy operated, but not the Royal Indian Navy, which did not have any aircraft carriers. The Royal Navy did not have any connection with India. RIN was later rechristened as Indian Navy upon independence. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's right to be honest. The Indian Navy was obviously greatly influenced by the RN during its early years, and the concept of investing in naval aviation wouldn't have come from out of the blue. The Royal Australian Navy and Royal Canadian Navies also established air arms at about this time due to their wartime experiences and the influence of British doctrine (not the mention the easy availability of affordable aircraft carriers and aircraft from the UK). Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Thanks for the review. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: So what do you suggest on your last comment? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: G'day, I had a crack at addressing this with this edit: [54]. Not sure if that resolves your concern at all... Please feel free to revert if it doesn't work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does: I was waiting for a response from the nominator. Anyway, I'm now happy to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: I haven't replied cause I am OK with Rupert's edit. Are there any concerns? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: I assume "not" was typo and intended to be "now"? Just checking because it rather changes the meaning of the sentence! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was a typo :) Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The external link tracker shows 1 link is questionable (see results). Otherwise, I am willing to support this ACR for promotion as everything else appears to be in good order. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TomStar81: Thanks for the review. I don't know what made the tracker to do that. But please go and check the link. It is working fine. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Support, as everything else appears to be in order. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:27, 25 February 2017 (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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

York City War Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

York City War Memorial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

No prizes for guessing what this one is! Following a brief hiatus over the holidays and while I worked on another article, this one follows on directly from the North Eastern Railway War Memorial which passed an ACR at the tail end of last year. As always, all comments are gratefully received. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Bounder.
  • I'm not sure of the wording "the council tasked the war memorial committee to consider" I think it should either be "the council tasked the war memorial committee with considering", or "the council instructed (or similar) the war memorial committee to consider".
  • I'm not sure of the wording "complete its characteristic ..." is there a missing word?

Excellent work as always, cheers – The Bounder (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed both of these now. My apologies for the delay (real life got in the way, alas), and thank you very much for the review, The Bounder. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Another nice piece of work in an increasingly impressive series. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

Good work, just a few comments for your consideration:

  • 'Lead': The lead seems overly long given the overall length of the main body of the article; I suggest condensing the first and second paragraphs particularly, the third is OK in length.
    • Fair point; trimmed.
  • 'Lead': There are cites in the lead; is there a reason for this as generally they aren't required as the lead is just a summary of the main body and thus is fully cited anyway?
    • A hangover from when I first wrote the article; they don't harm anything but they're not really necessary either.
  • 'Lead': Also in the lead (and in the 'History and design' section): should "grade II" be title case?
    • I generally don't put it in title case (we don't use title case for "listed building" so it looks odd to me). Some people do and I don't care enough to fight over it, but I don't think there's a firm rule.
  • 'Inception': "The committee gave Lutyens a budget of £2,000 (1920)" Maybe make more explicit we are referring to £2,000 at the time?
    • Do you have a suggestion for this?
      • I had thought that adding some sort of a conversion £2,000 in 1920 into the pound of today would be useful to better appreciate the value ofthe work involved but thinking about it, this could cause maintenance/update issues in years to run. I will make it a suggestion for your consideration only instead, and add my support. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few dupe links: Historic England, North Eastern Railway War Memorial, River Ouse.
    • Removed, except for the NER Memorial, which is important enough to be linked in two places.

That's all from me. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review, Zawed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support

All looks good to me. A surprisingly interesting article on what at first glance seems to be an unexceptional memorial. The memorials in Britain are similar to those in Australia. Given the choice of having a functional memorial or a pile of stone, the Great War generation chose stone. Whereas memorials to the Second World War come in the form of either adding "1939-45" to Great War memorials (many of which now also sport "Korea", "Vietnam", "Iraq" etc) or the purely functional ("memorial library/swimming pool/squash court" etc). My only quibble with the article is that I had no idea what a Grade II or II* listed building is; I turned to listed building with little hope but found it there. Do you think it would work to add the definitions here? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the memorials are intricate and beautiful and remarkable in their own right, but more often than not it's the stories behind the lumps of stone that make them interesting, and deeply poignant. Some of the most moving memorials, in my experience, are the ones in small towns ad villages (there's something very distressing about seeing more names on a war memorial than houses in a village), and of course the proliferation of them is itself deeply poignant. I agree with your suggestion wrt listing statuses and I've had similar feedback on my ongoing FAC so I've added it in to both articles and I'll go through the others and add it to them later. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • All tool checks ok [i.e. no dabs, no repeat links, external links work] (no action req'd)
    • Earwig tool reveals no issues with close paraphrase or copy vios etc [55] (no action req'd)
    • I tweaked a comma [56], but otherwise prose looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, AC, and I agree with your comma tweak! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image check the memorials depicted in the photographs are all PD-UK, because the sculptor died before 1947, but my query is about whether they are PD in the US. They can't be PD-US-1923-abroad due to the dates they were completed. Nikkimaria, could you take a look and advise please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:52, 22 February 2017 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Alan Shepard[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Alan Shepard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Despite what you may have heard recently, Alan Shepard was the first American in space. And he's be the first to tell you so if he were here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, not a lot stood out to me. Just a few minor observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • is "bail out" correct or should it be "eject"?
    checkY My source says "bailed out" but he would have ejected. Changed to say that. Someone once attempted to compile a list of people who ejected. [57] The aircraft killed plenty of pilots between 1949 and 1959, earning it the nickname "ensign eliminator". Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but emphasised that it was..." --> "emphasized"?
    checkY My auto spell correction works against me here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " but to select six astronauts instead of the twelve originally planned..." and then "The identities of the seven..." --> Why were seven selected, when it was planned to select only six?
    checkY Added The director of the NASA Space Task Group, Robert R. Gilruth, found himself unable to select six from the remaining eighteen, so ultimately seven were chosen. FWIW, three of the other 25 finalists eventually became astronauts: Charles Conrad, Edward Givens and James Lovell. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of an SM-65D Atlas similar to the one that was to carry them into orbit". --> "of an SM-65D Atlas, which was similar to the one that was to carry them into orbit"?
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • not sure about the capitalisation here: "the Command Pilot of the..." and "chosen as his Pilot". Are these proper or common nouns?
    checkY An artefact of the sources. De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • capitalisation: "He was promoted to Rear Admiral by Nixon..." --> "He was promoted to rear admiral by Nixon" per WP:MILTERMS
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Bounder

Nicely put together and very readable. A few very minor quibbles to consider:

  • The sentence "He was fascinated by flight, and created a model airplane club at the Academy, and his Christmas present in 1938 was a flight in a Douglas DC-3" is a little clunky with the three clauses. Perhaps "He was fascinated by flight, and created a model airplane club at the Academy; his Christmas present in 1938 was a flight in a Douglas DC-3" would ease this?
    checkY Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw Manchester Airport and I (as a Brit) thought Manchester Airport, not Manchester–Boston Regional Airport. As we're international, it may be best to use the full name to spare images of a transatlantic bicycle ride...
    checkY But it was not the full name then. Changed to "Manchester Airfield". Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • prep school. Worth piping a link to University-preparatory school?
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "row with the eight": is this OK in US English? It jars with my British English (we would say he "rowed with the eight"), but if it's OK in the US, that's fine.
    checkY Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely worth linking to Radar picket
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was a member of many organizations." doesn't tell us anything and worth scratching, particularly given the list of them in the following sentence.
  • "Many things are named in his honor." Same as above: it's not needed if there is a long list to follow
    checkY It was sort of a bridege. Removed. See if it reads okay without it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably worth moving "Blue Origin's subortial space tourism rocket, the New Shepard, is named after Shepard.[119]" up to the rest of the 'things named after him' paragraphs to avoid a stubby line floating out of context.
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All minor pickings in an excellent article; I hope these are of help. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Changes all good, and I'm happy to support. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Interesting read; just a few nitpicks:

  • Opening: difficult to read/parse - chronological order
     Done I have rewritten it in chronological order. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mind having his main 'claim to fame' in the first paragraph, just that the opening sentences were a list of accomplishments and seemed to bounce around. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 463rd in his class of 915 This doesn't seem particularly remarkable; is there are a reason it's mentioned?
    Yes. Class rank pretty much defines your whole naval career. Being halfway down the list makes becoming an admiral unlikely.
  • More of an observation than a criticism, but it seems strange that he would be an average student with such a high IQ
    Shepard called it "complacency". He was intensely competitive and driven, but was more task oriented. A great deal of effort went into sailing and rowing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the death of Louise's sister in 1956, they raised her niece, Judith, whom they renamed Alice to avoid confusion with Julie, as their own, although they never adopted her There's a lot of subclauses there; perhaps replace one set of commas with dashes?
     Done This is really one of the most bizarre sentences in the article. It also corrects errors in various accounts, including earlier version of the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, how old was Judith/Alice at the time? Presumably she would have had to have been very young to be renamed like that?
    checkY She was five. Added, although the long sentence is now even longer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The squadron was nominally based on the aircraft carrier USS Franklin D. Roosevelt, but it was being overhauled at the time Shepard arrived The ship was or the squadron was?
    checkY The ship. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • He departed on his first cruise, of the Caribbean, with it Again, the ship or the squadron?
    checkY Both. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have dates of his promotions?
    No. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • At one point he was forced to eject from a Vought F7U Cutlass. Are there any more detials on this?
    checkY Yes indeed. I have expanded on it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • his unfavorable report killed the project Is that speculation or certainty? Do we know what he didn't like about it?
    checkY No, although it would be in the report, which we could dig up. The Wikipedia article says that the Navy didn't want too many Douglas aircraft. Changed to be less definite. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • When reporters rang Shorty Powers for a comment at 4am, he memorably replied: "We're all asleep down here" This is amusing, but isn't a little off-topic for a biography of Shepard?
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither Cooper nor McDivitt ever flew in space again. Is this relevant to Shepard's biography?
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was promoted to rear admiral by Nixon one-star or two-star? If one-star, that explains the relevance of McDivitt's rank; otherwise, is it relevant?
    It's complicated. The US Navy eliminated the one-star rank of commodore after World War II. Thereafter (until 1981), there were two grades of rear admiral, "lower half" and "upper half". The former were paid the same as one-star brigadier generals in the Army or Air Force, but both wore two-star insignia. Thus, Shepard (two stars) outranked McDivitt (one star). Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Happy with the changes. Promotion dates would have made the career progression clearer, but there's nothing we can do about that if the information isn't available. I don't know where you find the time to write about astronauts and paralympians in between your work on the Manhattan Project! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • All tool checks ok [no dabs, external links work, no repeat links] (no action req'd)
    • Earwig tool reviews no issues with close paraphrase or copy vio, only use of the public domain sources [58] (no action req'd)
    • Image review: all images either seem to be PD or free and have the necessary information and tags (no action req'd).
    • I made a few very minor tweaks [59], otherwise this looks like it meets the A class criteria. Anotherclown (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2017 (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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

18th Battalion (New Zealand)[edit]

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

18th Battalion (New Zealand) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the appropriate criteria. The 18th Battalion was part of the 4th Infantry Brigade, 2nd New Zealand Division, raised for service shortly after the outbreak of the Second World War. It served in the campaigns in Greece, Crete and North Africa before being converted to armour after which it then fought in Italy. It has been through a GA review and I have made some small additions since then. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to provide feedback. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • What is the date for that Army crest design? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: After a bit of digging around, it appears the crest design dates only to 2000 so it would seem that the original uploader has not used the correct permissions. I will remove from this article. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Nice work. I reviewed this for GA about two years ago and am pleased to see it here at A-class. I did some copy editing and have a few minor comments, but nothing that affects my support: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • the only duplicate links identified are in the list of battle honours, which seems reasonable to me (no action required)
  • a couple of the images lack alt text, which would be a good addition, but is not mandatory (suggestion only): [60]
  • in the lead, "The 18th Battalion was formed in New Zealand in September 1939 and after a period of training, it embarked for the Middle East and then onto Greece in 1941 as part of the 2nd New Zealand Division". Perhaps change to something like: "The 18th Battalion was formed in New Zealand in September 1939. After a period of training, it embarked for the Middle East as part of the 2nd New Zealand Division, and was later sent to Greece in 1941"?
  • in the lead, "Brought back up to strength, the battalion participated in the breakout of the 2nd New Zealand Division from Minqar Qaim in June 1942, where it had been encircled by the German 21st Panzer Division." Perhaps change to something like this: "Brought back up to strength, in June 1942 the battalion participated in the breakout of the 2nd New Zealand Division from Minqar Qaim, where it had been encircled by the German 21st Panzer Division."
  • The first two sentences of the Background section start with the same word ("Following"), perhaps change one to vary your language?
  • "Its personnel were all volunteers were drawn from the Northern Military District..." Either drop the second "were", or add an "and" in front of the second "were"
  • "before it arrived at Tewfik, Egypt, where the battalion disembarked..." perhaps the date of their arrival could be added here?
  • is there a link that could be provided for Galatas and Sfakia?
  • No obvious link unfortunately. Zawed (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "night-time capture of Belhamed": --> "night-time" is probably redundant here given that night is already mentioned earlier
  • "establish defensive positions at Minqar Qaim": suggest working in a link of the main battle article here (First Battle of El Alamein?)
  • "The corps moved to Cassino": what date did this occur?
  • Have added to article. Zawed (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Bounder

Nicely put together and very readable. A few very minor quibbles to consider:

  • Is "disestablished" the right word? Wouldn't "disbanded" work a little better? (In the lead and the body)
  • "and waiting transportation": waiting for transportation?
  • No, actually the transportation was waiting for them. I have opted to revise this to make it more clear. Zawed (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All minor pickings in an excellent article; I hope these are of help. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bounder: Thanks for taking the time to review the article (and your edits), it is greatly appreciated. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My pleasure. Happy to now support this emjoyable read. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -
    • You might consider adding alt text to the images.
    • Do some of the images need PD-US tags as well?
      • There were a couple that did need them added. I have done this. Zawed (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Otherwise I could not see any major issues after a read through. Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Anotherclown: thanks for the review, I have taken action regarding the items raised. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2017 (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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Lion-class battlecruiser[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Lion-class battlecruiser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Lion-class battlecruisers were two of the more powerful battlecruisers deployed by the British during World War I. They spent most of the war deployed in home waters and were very active as they were the first responders to any sorties by their German counterparts. Lion was badly damaged during the Battles of Dogger Bank in 1915 and Jutland in 1916 while her sister Princess Royal was only lightly damaged at worst. Both ships were scrapped after the war as obsolete. I've considerably overhauled the article since it passed GA back in '10 and believe that it meets the A-class criteria. As usual I'm looking for infelicitous language, uses of AmEng, and and jargon terms that need to be linked or explained better before I submit this to FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:HMS_Princess_Royal_LOC_18244u.jpg: when/where was this first published?
    • No idea. But it is part of the Bain collection with no known copyright restrictions.
  • File:HMS_Lion_hit_at_Jutland.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

  • In the lead and General characteristics sections, I'm finding the sequence of British battlecruisers hard to follow. The Lions succeeded the Indefatigable class, but where does the Invincible class fit in? I think the development of the classes could do with a bit more explanation.
    • Tweaked the wording a bit; see if it works for you.
  • Suggest 1909–1910 and similar per the new WP:DATERANGE guidance of years in full
    • Yeah, I hate that change.
  • there's some assumed knowledge about outer and inner shafts which lost me as I'm not a nautical cove. Is there a link that might help?
    • Tweaked, although I'm not sure if I should to specify that the ships had four propeller shafts as you kinda have to work it out for yourself. (2 × turbines, each driving 2 shafts = 4 shafts)
  • Suggest linking elevation
  • Suggest mentioning in the text that the secondary guns were single mounted
  • any information about how many torpedoes were carried?
    • Sorry no.
  • maybe link roll to ship motions?
    • Good idea
  • should foreward funnel be forward funnel? Or is this specific nautical lingo about directions on a ship? Then it is referred to as fore funnel. Perhaps use the same term?
    • Good catch.
  • more to come Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there any information about how many AA guns of each type were added to each ship during the war?
    • Done.
  • should after battery be aft battery?
  • how was Cöln suck, guns or torpedoes?
  • link Battle of the Falkland Islands in the body
  • this encounters
  • 15 nautical miles
  • Those, however, those
  • under tow back
  • under "repair" for the next three months
  • "gradually moved out of range" and "Beatty gradually turned" is a bit repetitive
  • damaged by "a" torpedo? or by torpedoes?
  • is dreadnoughtproject.org a reliable source?
    • Yes, note that they're mostly citing official manuals and the like. Furthermore one of the principal authors, Simon Harley, is a published authority on the RN.

That's me done. Good work, an interesting read. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Bounder[edit]

To follow shortly, aside from the two comments below:

  • I see that some of the page references are in the format 598–600, others are 130–38: these should be consistent throughout.
    • No, the first digit changed in your first example, thus requiring all three digits to avoid confusion.
  • "Authorized", "center" and "minimized" should be "Authorised", "centre" and "minimised"
    • Good catch.

More soon - The Bounder (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • As it's British English, it should probably be the First World War, rather than World War I
    • There's no national association with that term, as many British-published books also use World War I.
  • I'm not sure you need the "very" in "the very first"
    • Trying to clarify the sequence of British battlecruisers as per PM's comment above. Happy to take suggestions for rephrasing that bit, though.
      • The sequence doesn't change without the "very", it still refers to "the first". - The Bounder (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, removed.
  • Best to put the year in "sunk at the Battle of the Falkland Islands in December" to help.
  • Ditto on "the inconclusive Action of 19 August."
    • Concur on both as the year sequencing is hard to follow there.
  • "which the turret crewmen only had to follow" is probably best expressed as "which the turret crewmen followed".
    • Not sure I agree, because your wording doesn't reference how much simpler following the pointer was for them versus running the calculations themselves.

Done to the end of "Fire-control": more to come in the morning. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • "at a total cost of £68,170": it's a little unclear if this is the cost for refitting just the Princess Royal, or it and the Lion.
    • "Both ships" and "total cost" make it clear enough, I think.
  • I think I'm right in saying that "Furthermore" is one of those words that should carry a comma after them if they are at the start of the sentence
    • OK.
  • There are eight uses of "gun(s)" in the first paragraph of the Modifications section, including four in the first sentence. It may be worth using a couple of synonyms to break the weight of them.
    • Done.
  • The Raid on Scarborough section needs a year
    • Still 1914.

Down to the end of "Dogger Bank": more to follow shortly. - The Bounder (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing:

  • There is quite a lot of information in the sentence "On 31 May 1916, Princess Royal was the flagship of the 1st BCS, under the command of Rear-Admiral Osmond Brock,[38] which had put to sea with the rest of the Battlecruiser Fleet, led by Beatty in Lion, to intercept a sortie by the High Seas Fleet into the North Sea." – it may be best to split it in two for clarity.
    • Good idea.
  • Is "returned the favour" not a bit too casual for an encyclopaedia?
    • Reworded.

That's the lot from me. Nice article. – The Bounder (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. That's exactly the sort of stuff that I was looking for.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. My pleasure - a nicely put together article. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, just looking through post-support, you should still add a year to the Raid on Scarborough section. You know it's still 1914, but a new section should carry the year to help readers. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

  • The lead says that at Jutland "Lion suffered a serious cordite fire that could have destroyed the ship" but the body of the article does not say this.
    • Clarified.
  • Do we need to capitalise "Construction Programme"?
    • Yes, proper nouns.
  • "'Q' turret was located amidships and was unable to fire directly aft" I can't see how it could fire forward either.
  • "both Lion and Princess Royal had been hit twice" suggest "were hit twice"
  • "broadside" and "magazine" are linked twice.
  • Link Washington Naval Treaty in the last line

Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC) All done, thanks for catching these little problems.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2017 (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 HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

INS Vikrant (R11)[edit]

Nominator(s): Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk)

INS Vikrant (R11) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. This is first A-Class nomination for an article, apart from the four in past, which are lists. Regarding the article, built by United Kingdom, it is India's first aircraft carrier. Commissioned in 1961, participated in 1971 Indo-Pak war, and decommissioned in 1997, after 35 years of service. After her short stint as a museum ship, she was finally scrapped in 2014. I welcome comments to help to promoted the article to A-Class, and eventually to FA. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article was recently promoted to GA, reviewed by Sturmvogel_66. After that I have come across this link, that hints about a conspiracy the carrier was involved in. But I am not sure about adding this to the article in a separate section. Because the source is kind of blog (may not meet WP:RS). Secondly, no other sources have anything about this. Even though there are some links they blogs or discussion forums. Please suggest me over this. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, interestingly I have read about this theory before. I think it was somewhere else...but I can't recall where. Ultimately, I'd suggest being very careful with this and unless more reliable sources can be found, I probably wouldn't mention it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I can't find any reliable sources after many searches. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a crazy conspiracy theory.

Support Comments: Just a few minor comments at this stage. I will try to take a look again a bit later: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • inconsistent: "GlobalSecurity.org" v. "Global Security"
  • "Fleet Air Arm Archive" (should probably be in italics)
  • same as above for "First Post India"
  • "... the 'Vikrant Memorial' was unveiled by..." the MOS prefers double quotation marks over singular
  • "modernization refits — the first one from..." (should be an unspaced emdash)
  • "A 9.75-degree Ski-jump ramp was fitted..." (should probably be "ski-jump")
  • "...in 'Safe to Float' state...", probably should be decapitalised and in double quotation marks
  • inconsistent caps: "The Naval Headquarters remained..." v "At this time, the naval headquarters attempted..."
  • "INS Vikrant (R11) - History, Specs and Pictures": (should be an endash not a hyphen)
  • "Indian Naval Aviation - Air Arm & its Carriers": (same as above)
  • "...by the Coast Battery...": not sure about the capitalization here, as it implies that it is the only one, is there an actual designation for this unit?
  • same as above for "the Clearance Driving Team"
  • "The plan was, if any misadventure happens..." this is not grammatically correct
@AustralianRupert: Thanks for the review. All done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I've gone through the article again and tried to copy edit it a bit. I hope that I've improved it, but I would recommend asking for someone else with more skill to take a look before taking it to FAC. In regards to content, I have one final question: during the annexation of Goa, did the ship's aircraft fly any operational sorties? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: Added a sentence to satisfy your query. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I've tweaked it a bit more and added my support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
  • "During early years of World War II, the Royal Navy decided to build a fleet of light aircraft carriers, that would take less time for construction to counter the German and Japanese navies." Remove the comma after "carriers". And less time than what?
    • The Royal Navy decided to build carriers that would take less time for construction because they could be put into use as soon as possible in the war. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The final six were modified during construction to handle larger and faster aircraft, and were re-designated the Majestic class." What modifications are we talking about here?
  • "The flight deck was designed to handle aircraft up to 24,000 pounds (11,000 kg), however, 20,000 lb (9,100 kg) remained the heaviest landing weight of an aircraft." remove "however," and replace with "but"
  • "Their crew numbered 1,110 officers and ratings" should be "The crew"
  • Link STOVL
  • " Its aircraft consisted of Hawker Sea Hawk, Sea King Mk 42B, HAL Chetak, Sea Harrier (STOVL) and Breguet Alizé Br.1050" But not at the same time, correct?
  • "The ship's initial fleet consisted of" Can we have a better word than "fleet"?
  • Lieutenant Radhakrishna Hariram Tahiliani (later Admiral, Chief of the Naval Staff of India, 1984–1987). We don't normally use this form in Wikipedia. Re-phrase as prose.
  • ": due to many internal fatigue cracks and fissures in the water drums of her boilers, that could not be repaired by welding" drop the comma
  • "The Naval Headquarters remained stubborn" Which Naval Headquarters?
  • "After receiving the reports that Pakistan might launch preemptive strikes" should be "pre-emptive"
  • Will the new Vikrant have the same hull number?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I have done the changes, please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-worded a couple of bits. All looks fine now. As a side note, I found the quote from Gulab Hiranandani particularly interesting, as it points to a debate in India over the value of aircraft carriers similar to those in the UK, Canada and Australia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67

  • Given she was the first aircraft carrier, I would expect to read about what other aircraft carriers were commissioned during her service, and (briefly) how they differed from Vikrant, ie what lessons did the Indian Navy learn from Vikrant and what did they decide to do with their next carrier(s) as a result?
Actually this information isn't available from the sources. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would expect to read about the fact that a new INS Vikrant is in the works, and that should also be in the lead.
  • link keel laying at first mention of laid down
  • what is "improved displacement"? less? more? "improved" seems a strange way to describe displacement, but the nautical coves will probably correct me if I'm wrong.
  • suggest HMS Hercules, was ordered on 7 August 1942 and laid down on 14 October 1943
  • suggest she was 75 per cent complete
  • suggest In May 1947, she was laid up... No need to mention she was sold to India a decade later, we get that in the next sentence.
  • was the original design mentioned the Colussus class design or the Majestic one?
  • suggest Their flight decks if you are referring to the class
  • the mention of the heaviest aircraft is a bit confusing, does this refer to the heaviest aircraft landed on Vikrant or any of the Majestic carriers?
  • you've mixed references to Vikrant then the class, with Vikrant's displacement then an apparent reference to class characteristics, I suggest sticking to Vikrant at this point, you've already explained that the Majestic class varied from ship to ship.
  • the speed conversions are from nautical miles then miles, stick to nmi I suggest
  • is there any information about when the AA armament was reduced and why?
  • when you list the aircraft, perhaps mention and link what type of aircraft they were, ie Hawk was a jet fighter-bomber, the Sea King and Chetak were helos and the Alizé a turboprop ASW aircraft
  • Indian Navy's fleet
  • for the annexation
  • suggest replacing intercession with interference
  • we go from Bombay to Mumbai, suggest (formerly Bombay) if its name changed in the interim
  • replacement drums
  • it isn't very clear that the new drums hadn't arrived by February 1971, suggest making it clear
  • returned on 20 March
  • propeller revolutions to revolutions to
  • suggest replacing confined with limited
  • suggest The primary concern of Naval Headquarters
  • suggest When asked his opinion regarding the involvement of Vikrant in the pending war, Captain (later Vice Admiral) Gulab Mohanlal Hiranandani, then the Fleet Operations Officer of the Indian Navy, told the Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Sardarilal Mathradas Nanda:
  • suggest the carrier to increased danger on operations
  • suggest supported this criticismposed a significant risk to the carrier
  • suggest in the war (if it happened)on operations
  • suggest This fleet rather than The fleet, as it could be confused with the whole fleet
  • if Kamorta and Kavaratti are likely to justify articles eventually ( would have thought so), redlink them
  • where was the surveillance triangle situated? The Bay of Bengal?
  • suggest found to be neutral
  • link war prize
  • suggest meantime not mean time
  • suggest the intelligence reports
  • suggest US-built Tench-class
  • I can't understand Ghazi was considered as a serious threat to Vikrant by the Indian Navy once her approximate position was known to the Pakistanis when she started operating aircraft.
  • take the parentheses off INS Kavaratti
  • meant that the other three had to remain in close vicinity
  • suggest flying theoperating aircraft
  • Commanding Officer shouldn't have initial caps
  • suggest concerned about flyingflight operations
  • suggest He was concerned that aircrew morale would be adversely affected if flight operations were not undertaken
  • The Indian Naval Headquarters
  • some explanation of why the Alize was difficult to embark at low speed is needed. Suggest (assuming this is right) The speed restrictions imposed by the meant that Alize aircraft would have to land at close to stalling speed. Eventually this was achieved by reducing aircraft weight, and several of the aircraft were embarked in addition to a Seahawk squadron.
  • suggest all the maintenance
  • suggest sail off Vikrant
  • suggest messages would be sent to deceive the Pakistanis that Vikrant...
  • suggest The submarine Ghazi
  • suggest and she had reached a location near Madras by...
  • suggest|Naval Headquarters attempted to deceive the Pakistani Navy and Ghazi as far as possible. This was done by deploying Rajput as a decoy. Rajput sailed 160 mi (260 km) off the coast of Vishakhapatnam and broadcast a significant amount of radio traffic, making her appear to be Vikrant.}}
  • suggest The submarineGhazi sank
  • suggest the sameit
  • suggest was reported to have observed flotsam where?
  • that something hada vessel had
  • link clearance diving team
  • suggest points outsuggests
  • extent of the damage
  • suggest replacing dive in an immense hurry with crash dive and link
  • suggest replacing nose with bow
  • drop INS
  • drop initial caps in Commanding Officer
  • suggest expected it to be a submarine divingsuspected that it was caused by a submarine
  • until the 10thuntil 10 December
  • suggest Medium anti-aircraft fire was observedencountered
  • suggest per cent (British English) assuming that is what you are writing in
  • same (optional for modernise etc)
  • V/STOL and ASW should be introduced when the aircraft are mentioned first in the article, and shouldn't be needed here
  • suggest Since its commissioningDuring her service, INS Vikrant has
  • Following the decommissioning
  • perhaps "earmarked"?

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for the review, please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. I've made a couple of tweaks, check they are ok. Supporting, really good work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:INS_Vikrant.JPG: what is the copyright status of the pictured artwork?
  • File:A_Vikrant_Memorial_was_unveiled_by_Vice_Admiral_SPS_Cheema,_Flag_Officer_Commanding-in-Chief,_Western_Naval_Command_%26_Shri_Ajoy_Mehta,_Municipal_Commissioner,_Municipal_Corporation_of_Greater_Mumbai.jpg: what is the copyright status of the memorial? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Removed the images as the status is unclear. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:48, 6 February 2017 (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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Ames Project[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

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

Toolbox

One of the Manhattan Project's more minor projects, but you cannot make atomic bombs without uranium. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I did a little copy editing and have a few minor observations, but overall this looks good to me: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think an image in the lead would help to improve it visually, but it isn't a requirement
    It's pretty frustrating. I don't have any images. The final external link contains plenty of photos that it would be nice to use, but they are copyrighted by Iowa State College. If there were Americans on Wikipedia, one could drive out to the Ames Laboratory and get photos of the plaque outside Wilhelm Hall and the Army-=Navy E flag at the Lab. But there are only about 1,000 active Wikipedians, and as was demonstrated during the Paralympics, few are Americans. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the images appear to be appropriately licenced to me (kudos on having three featured pictures in the article!)
  • I see some British/Australian English spelling, e.g. "organisations", "organise", "minimise" and "totalled" etc, which should probably use US spelling
     Done Let me know if you find any more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that there are some minor inconsistencies in the referencing style, for instance compare Note 26 (Driggs, F. H. etc) with Note 17 (Goldman), both are journals, but one uses the short citation style, and one the long. Is there a reason for this? Same-same for Note 27, 28 and 61
     Done The ones where I simply referenced the paper were in the long form. Moved them down so everything is in the short form. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed a couple of overlinked terms; the script identifies a couple more, but to be honest I think they are ok to remain due to the distance between the the links and the technical nature of the term (I will leave it up to you: the terms are "nuclear chain reaction" and "calcium oxide")
     Done De-linked "nuclear chain reaction" Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "developed by Peter P. Alexander used calcium hydride as the reducing agent...": probably don't need the full name here as he has already been introduced
     Done Hadn't noticed that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • minor grammatical issue here: "bombs were being prepared in a 4-inch (10 cm) steel pipes..." --> "bombs were being prepared in 4-inch (10 cm) steel pipes..." or "bombs were being prepared in 4-inch (10 cm) steel pipes"
     Done Deleted the "a" Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Production rose from 100 pounds (45 kg) per day in December 1942 to 550 pounds (250 kg) per day by the middle of January": "January 1943"?
     Done Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • At first Spedding had to depart for Chicago soon after the meeting, Clarify that he had to go to Chicago after "each" meeting.
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metal Hybrides Incorporated Typo, I believe
     Done Typo. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • large 40,000 W reduction furnaces Presumably watts? Link and spell out term (probably better rendered as kW) and link reduction furnace.
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ames Project was producing a ton of highly pure uranium metal a day.[43] Production rose from 100 pounds (45 kg) per day in December 1942 to 550 pounds (250 kg) per day by the middle of January 1943. Chronology here is confused.
     Done Deleted first sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10-inch (25 cm), 42-inch (110 cm) long suggest changing the order here to 10-inch pipes, 42 inches long, for clarity.
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much the same here as well: 0.75-inch (19 mm) diameter rods 4 inches (100 mm) long, And watch your rounding, 4 inches is actually 102 mm
     Done Switched to cm Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 150 pounds (68 kg) ingots |adj=on
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link crucible on first use.
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • studied uranium-copper alloys, which would occur at the interface this I don't understand.
     Done You put uranium in contact with copper, and you can get a uranium-copper alloy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? I've always understood that an alloy is a mixture and layering them doesn't much seem like mixing them unless there's some sort of reaction at the interface that causes them to intermix. Is that correct? Or is that the phrasing in the original sources?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The source (the MDH) says: One of the materials suggested for such a protective coating was copper, and so the uranium-copper system was experimentally determined to establish the type of alloy that would result at a uranium-copper interface, and the corrosion resistance of such an alloy was studied. I turn therefore to AECD 2717, a declassified report:
    "In the uranium-copper system one compound, UCu
    5    , has been Identified. This compound forms peritectically on cooling at 1052°C (1925°F). It oxidizes slowly in air, is extremely brittle and has a density of 10.6 g/cc. It is face centered cubic with a0 = 7.0208 A. A eutectic exists between the compound and pure copper at 75 weight per cent Cu and 950°C (1740°F)."
    Included a link to this report in the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, OK, that makes more sense. I was thinking more of a sleeve or something done at close to room temperature like electroplating that wouldn't provide enough energy to mix the elements.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administration was delegated to IAR who?
    It's in the previous paragraph: "The Iowa State Board of Education created the Institute of Atomic Research (IAR)" Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirmatory survey of buildings 7, 8, 9 and 10a Bloomfield lamp plant Westinghouse Electric Corporation Bloomfield, New Jersey Put this title in title case.
     Done

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent work as always. Really can't find much to criticise, but again it's not my are of expertise. The few comments I have:

  • A single-paragraph lead seems quite thin for a 3500-word article.
  • " Unfortunately, the calcium hydride " 'Unfortunately' is arguably editorialising and is frowned upon at FAC

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:51, 5 February 2017 (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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Dayton Project[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

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

Toolbox

One of the Manhattan Project's more minor projects, but critical to the building of the atomic bomb. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "0.222473 milligrams (0.00343328 gr)": Why that precision?
    Errr, it's what the source says. Do you have a suggestion for a better precision? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • My source tells me that pi is about 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510. I don't generally include all those digits, though, because it's boring and not usually relevant to the narrative. - Dank (push to talk) 04:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure. Changed to "A curie of polonium weighs about 0.2 milligrams". The important point is that they processed a ton of lead oxide to produce less than a milligram of polonium. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        One thing that nobody seems to notice - perhaps everybody does it in America - is that Monsanto ran a chemical processing operation involving radioactive substances in a residential neighborhood. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cost: This section has only one short sentence.
    Expanded into a table, and moved into the Production section Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post war: Should be a noun, per WP:HEADING.
    Removed that heading. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a 2,000 pounds (910 kg) bomb": adj=on
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: just a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • images seem appropriately licenced to me;
  • in the lead, "recruited by the Manhattan Project in the role of coordinating the plutonium purification and production work being carried out at various sites" --> "recruited by the Manhattan Project to coordinate the plutonium purification and production work being carried out at various sites"
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when Mound Laboratories were completed..." --> "when Mound Laboratories was completed" or "when the Mound Laboratories were completed"?
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Early in 1943, he travelled to the East with..." --> is it necessary to capitalise "East" here?
    checkY De-captitated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see some British English spelling, for instance "centimetre" (which is probably due to the conversion template)
    checkY Yes, that's right. sp=us cards added. It's all Noah Webster's fault. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been pointed out to me that "meter" is not the official US spelling, just Noah Webster's. The Manhattan Project consistently used "metre". Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • was there a Unit II? Units I, III, IV and V seem to be mentioned, but not 2...
    checkY Yes, but it wasn't very important. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Production section, in the table, I suggest that "cost" be capitalised as "Cost"
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "until the 1980s, when it was demolished, and the land was sold in 1992." --> "until the 1980s, when it was demolished. The land was sold in 1992."
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • The Talbotts were among the heirs of the Delco company, which was by then a part of General Motors.[7] This fortune had come in large part from profits made during World War I on airplanes that never flew. While it's interesting that Thomas was sort of self-dealing with his wife's family property, this bit really isn't relevant to the article.
    I think it is very important. Especially in view of what happens later in the article. It explains why the property was chosen. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only the fact that the family controlled the Playhouse is relevant to the article. The source of their wealth isn't relevant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 0.2 to 0.3 milligrams (0.0031 to 0.0046 gr) What the hell's a gr? A grain? If so link the unit in the template on first use as I'd expect that most people also wouldn't know what that was.
     Done It's the American customary unit. In fact, it is the default conversion of the {{convert}} template. The conversion is mainly for Americans, as everyone else knows metric, and they are familiar with grains, since they own firearms. Linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    <Western drawl>I'm afraid that you're under a bit of a misapprehension, son; the only ones really familiar with grains are the reloaders, and they're a pretty small proportion of the American public, as the rest of us are content to buy our ammo as God intended.</drawl>
  • 32 to 83 curies (1.2 to 3.1 TBq) TBq = teraBequerels? Link this one as well.
  • And PBq.
     Done Curies and becquerels are linked on first use. 1 Ci = 37 GBq Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historical Resume of Monsanto's Operation of the Dayton Project Sites-Unites I, II, Ill, IV and Others Fix the spellings here.
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And be consistent with the date format in the references.
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consideration was given to using Unit II in December 1946, but was rejected in favor of erecting a Quonset Hut at Unit III. Missed this earlier. What's this in reference to?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Moved up two paragraphs to the Unit II discussion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2017 (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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Beograd-class destroyer[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Beograd-class destroyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Beograd class were the only class of destroyers built for the Royal Yugoslav Navy, entering service just before WWII. One was scuttled during the April 1941 Axis invasion (this was even portrayed later in film), but the other two saw service with the Italians as war prize ships, doing escort duty to North Africa. One survived to see service with the Germans after the Italian capitulation before it was lost in the final weeks of the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - not much from me.

  • The service field of the infobox should start in 1939, not 37.
    • Fixed.
  • I wonder what the relevance of pointing out the French name for the flotilla leader concept is.
    • Good point, dropped it.
  • Are there keel-laying dates for the ships? Parsecboy (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that I am aware of, Parsecboy. I just double-checked, and neither Conway's nor Whitley list dates for keel laying. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Best I seem to be able to find is Warship 2005, which simply gives 1936 (see the Split article if you want to copy the citation over). Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added to the table with citation. Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I managed to find a British diplomatic report that refers to both of the locally-built ones being under construction in 1936. The Yugoslavs had two appropriately-sized construction docks operating simultaneously, so I reckon that seals the deal for 1936 for them all. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, "...a class of three destroyers built for the Royal Yugoslav Navy on a French design in the late 1930s" --> "...were a group of three destroyers built for the Royal Yugoslav Navy in late 1930s based on a French design"?
  • Done.
  • in the lead, I wonder if a short sentence summarising their pre-World War II careers should be added before mentioning the April 1941 invasion.
  • I don't think there is anything of note to say.
  • "...and two machine guns". What was the purpose of the machine guns? Close in protection?
  • Good question, possibly for close-in AA defence?
  • I wonder about potentially fleshing out the Service section with a little more detail, such some of the details in the table. For instance, "After being laid down in 1936, the ships were all launched between December 1937 and June 1938. Work was completed by X, and the vessels commissioned between April and December 1939..."?
  • I'm try to stick to using tables for that info in class articles.
  • "...and the captain was arrested pending an investigation". What was the result of the investigation?
  • Couldn't find the result.
  • in the References, Campbell should come before Cernuschi
  • Done.
  • the ""Flammes sur l'Adriatique" website should use endashes in the title rather than hyphens, I think
  • Yep, fixed.
  • Anyway, that's it from me. This will probably my last A-class review for a while as I would like to take a break from this part of Wikipedia. Frankly I'm getting concerned that my reviews are no longer as helpful as they should be and I think the process would be better off without me for a bit. Please feel free to ignore anything you don't agree with. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Link Aegean Sea, North Africa, Gulf of Tunis, scuttled, commission, reef, division, ran aground
  • Add range to the infobox.
  • Add at X speed to range figures if available.
  • ships had only been commissioned for a short time Suggest "in commission"
  • two year period hyphenate two-year--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2017 (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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Inmate[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

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

Toolbox

This article covers an unusual operation conducted by the British Pacific Fleet in June 1945. It involved attacks by a British aircraft carrier and four cruisers against an isolated Japanese base in the central Pacific, with the main goal being to provide the ships involved with combat experience. This proved successful, though the cruiser bombardment was farcical and the Allied losses which were considered acceptable by 1945 standards would be a scandal today. Overall, the article provides what I hope is an interesting snapshot of how the British Pacific Fleet operated.

The article passed a GA review in November 2016. I have since expanded and copy edited it, and hope that it now meets the A-class criteria. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC) I reviewed this article for GA in November, and have reviewed the changes made since. I have made a couple of minor tweaks to prose, and consider that it meets the A-Class criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those changes and your review. Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Support. I made a few minor tweaks here, all minor stuff, ut feel fre t revert any of them you don't agree with. The only possible edit I shied away from was removing the hyphen from "lightly-defended", as I think the MoS says not to hyphenate ~ly constructions (no idea on the logic on that, but when was the MoS ever logical...!) All the best, The Bounder (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for those changes, I agree that that hyphen wasn't needed and have removed it. Nick-D (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments
  • Do we not know the Japanese commander's name? According to Structure_of_the_Imperial_Japanese_forces_in_the_South_Pacific_Mandate#Truk_Island_Unit, it was LTG Shunsaburo Mugikura, which is confirmed here.
    • I'm surprised that I didn't think to consult Rottman, who's one of the go-to references for just about everything related to the Pacific War. I've added these details. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a related note, can we get some details on the Japanese situation in 1945? Even if detailed information isn't available, something along the lines of what's presented in the above link would be useful to get a sense of the size of the force garrisoned in the islands.
    • As above, I've drawn on the unfortunately scratchy coverage to describe the defences in more detail. Thanks for suggesting this. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The line "A book published to mark the 50th anniversary..." - why not just give the name of the book? Parsecboy (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basically as I prefer to alert readers to the purpose of the book here: judgements like this from anniversary histories need to be treated with a degree of caution, though all the authors of this work were professionals and it was edited by a reputable historian. Also, the name of the book is lengthy!
    • @Parsecboy: sorry for the slow response here: I was out of town and missed your review until today. I think that I may have now addressed your comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not a problem at all - I'm certainly not always the fastest on replying to things ;) Parsecboy (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Link aircraft carrier, cruiser, destroyer, air strike, atoll, Australia, Pacific War, oil tank, rocket on first use.
    • I've linked most of those, but left out atoll as the geography is explained in the linked Chuuk Lagoon article and Australia, oil tank and rocket as they're common terms/concepts. Nick-D (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find it hard to overestimate American geographic illiteracy, but I tend to error more on the side of caution than many regarding links.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd rather not, as I'd be asked to remove these links if the article went to FAC per WP:OLINK. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Operation Inmate was a British Pacific Fleet attack Perhaps "Operation Inmate was an attack by British Pacific Fleet"...? Suggestion only.
  • Implacable is linked in the lede and in the first para of the Background section. Delete the second link as it's quite close to the first one.
  • number of small calibre anti-aircraft hyphenate small calibre
    • Not sure about the rules of grammar here, but two hyphenated terms next to each other ("small-calibre anti-aircraft") looks awkward. Nick-D (talk)
      • Grammar says yes as they're both compound adjectives, but perhaps you could abbreviate AA guns?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • British Official historian decapitalize official
  • Fix the title in Smith.
  • Should this raid be added to the Pacific War template? Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone has done so, but I'm not so keen on it. This was a small-scale operation, and one of many such raids conducted for training purposes against Truk. Thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand your reasoning, but I think that these sorts of ops should be included in a campaignbox or the like for easy access.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, my underlying concern is that ever since someone smooshed all the Pacific War infoboxes together the thing has been a monstrosity. Anyway, it's there at the moment. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2017 (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 Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

List of ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This list has all the vessels (with the exception of hulks, tugs and smaller patrol craft) put into service by the Royal Yugoslav Navy between 1921 and 1945. It is one of the final pieces of a project I've been working on for several years, a Good Topic on the Royal Yugoslav Navy. All criticisms and suggestions gladly accepted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments: Sorry, lists aren't my strong suit. Just a few random (and incredibly minor) observations from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "File:Yugoslav submarine Osvetnik.jpg": not sure about the licencing on this one. It seems to have a pd rationale and a fair use rationale. If fair use, it should also have a rationale for this list
  • "File:SMS Kronprinz Erzherzog Rudolf.jpg": probably needs a date added to the description page
  • inconsistent "United Kingdom" v. "Great Britain"
  • United Kingdom isn't linked on first mention, but most other countries are
  • Thanks for taking a look, Rupert. I've removed the sub pic, added dates (of service) to the description page, fixed the inconsistency and linked all on first mention and unlinked on later mentions. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, your changes look good to me. I've taken another look now that I've started to get on top of my flu and I can think a little clearer (not much mind, but then I probably wasn't thinking clearly before the flu...). I have a couple more points below. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • extrapolating the guidance (potentially to breaking point, admittedly...) at WP:LAYOUTEL about using plurals even if there is only a single item, I think the headings such as "Light cruiser", "Coastal defence ship", and "Corvette" etc should potentially be plurals even though there was only one
    • I think that might be stretching the guidance.
  • I wonder if the lead could be expanded a little more (to say perhaps two paragraphs)
    • Done.
  • "River Flotilla" --> "River flotilla"?
    • Done.
  • could this title be translated: "Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe"?
  • Just thought I'd add that all class names in noun format (i.e. Hrabi class, Ushok class) should not be hyphenated. Class names are only hyphenated in adjectival form (i.e. Gazelle-class light cruiser) Llammakey (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

  • motor torpedo boats is over linked in the lead
  • Fixed.
  • Starting a list article "This is a list" is generally discouraged as it just repeats the information in the title. For example, see List of destroyers of India, from which I removed a similar sentence after discussion at FLC.
  • Done.
  • Better to mention "PT boats" in full
  • Done.
  • Usage of flag icon is also discouraged at FLC. The above mentioned list is an example. Also per MOS:ICON
  • Returned in 1949; use lower case "R"
  • Done.
  • Some tables have images and some don't. This leads to inconsistency. Better to drop the image column from all the tables and add the images on right flank of the list, see List of National Defence Academy alumni.
  • I prefer to group the images with each class, and not all classes have a free image available. I don't think the inconsistency is a problem, the tables are of varying widths regardless.
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section 6, 250t-class torpedo boats; Same image is presented for the entire class, if I am not wrong it is T3's. So I suggest to caption the image stating that it represents T3. Also for Orjen class, Hrabri class and River monitors.
    • I've pulled out the image column and made them separate, with appropriate captions.
  • Also add |alt= field for all the images.
    • Done.
  • I suggest adding a few lines of prose for each class/section explaining the table below. This is done many FL's including Yugoslav order of battle prior to the invasion of Yugoslavia, List of battlecruisers of Japan, List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy etc.
    • In this case, I think that would be redundant. The notes in the tables say everything that would be in the prose.
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Krishna. I've reconsidered my position given your comments and Parsecboy's, and have created subsections, brought the notes out into text and added a couple of extra pics. Let me know what you think, or if anything else could do with a tweak? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good for me, added my support. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • I'd like to see some technical details in the tables to give readers a sense of the size/capabilities of the vessels. A lot of the tables feel pretty barren at the moment (like the MT boat table, for instance).
  • At the same time, the tables feel a little cluttered, which is to say, multiple tables in the same sections without anything to break them up. I might suggest sub-headers to split them.
  • I can't say I love the sentence fragment notes sections. I suppose this is a personal preference, and you obviously don't have to follow the pattern Sturmvogel and I have used in our lists, but I feel like short paragraphs above the tables works better.

All for now. Parsecboy (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Parsecboy I've taken the notes out of the tables, created subsections and added in a couple of new pics. I've added displacement, but am not sure what else to add to the tables. Any suggestions? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I usually do primary armament (usually just the main battery or torpedoes), displacement, armor (if present), and basic engine details (type of engines, horsepower, and speed). You can crib the formatting from List of cruisers of Austria-Hungary (my current work-in-progress) along with a key table I've used in my lists, if you decide to go that route. Parsecboy (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • The former SMS Kronprinz Erzherzog Rudolf had been completed as an ironclad warship in 1889, so was an obsolete coastal defence ship when acquired by the Navy of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in 1921, and was scrapped the following year. Could you please split this into two sentences?
    • Done.
  • Only need to link long tons and knots upon first use, i.e. the first table.
    • Done.
  • Not fond of the sentence fragments in the Fate sections. They're a little long, IMO, not to be treated as sentences.
    • Changed to sentences where appropriate.
  • If you want the hyphen to properly display in the sclass- template, change the last digit to 0, rather than 4. I changed the one for Niobe for you already.
    • Not sure where this isn't correct.
      • That might have been the only example.
  • Link Genoa, Trieste, Bay of Kotor and all other places on first use. And struck off, raised, helicopter, water tanker (on first use), mined.
    • Done, except struck off and raised, what are the articles for them?
      • Struck off should probably link to Navy list and raised would be marine salvage.
  • After the Italian capitulation, two were returned to the KJRM-in-exile but one was sunk by German aircraft, and another was scuttled by her Italian crew. This reads to me like the Germans sank one of the returned ships. This whole bit is confusing.
    • Broke it up, see what you think?
      • Looks OK.
  • The boats that had escaped were transferred to the Yugoslav Navy at the end of the war Returned seems more appropriate than transferred.
    • In this case, it was transferred, as the two organisations effectively existed in parallel until the end of the war.
      • OK.
  • Suggest you use a colspan=4 in the table for all of the Orjens sunk at Salonkia.
    • Done.
  • KJRM in 1930 but comma after KJRM
    • Done.
  • Link to the WW2-era Croatian Navy.
  • Italians in April 1941 but survived to the war "and" survived. Delete "to"
    • Done.

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2017 (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 Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Project Y[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

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

Toolbox

The last of my series of Manhattan Project articles. This one is on the Los Alamos Laboratory. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: looks pretty good to me. I made a couple of minor tweaks and have a couple of nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • not sure if the triple emdashes work here: "the problems of neutron diffusion—how neutrons moved in a nuclear chain reaction—and hydrodynamics—how..."
    I think it works okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "desirable accommodation was the apartments built by Sundt..." --> "desirable accommodation were the apartments built by Sundt"?
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unlike his other project leaders—Lawrence at the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory, Compton at the Metallurgical Project in Chicago, and Urey at the SAM Laboratories in New York, Oppenheimer..." I think there should be an emdash before Oppenheimer here
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " burning 1 cubic metre (35 cu ft) of..." probably should be "meter"
     Done Blechh. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Groves personally issued instruction to clear Oppenheimer..." --> "Groves personally issued instructions to clear Oppenheimer" or "Groves personally issued an instruction to clear Oppenheimer"?
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. This is a great article ... I particularly like the images ... but it's also a very long one, and generally, your Manhattan Project articles don't have any trouble attracting reviewers. My current plan is to bail on this one, but if it gets stuck at FAC, I'll be back. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a lot more images, including ones of most of the buildings in the Tech Area, and examples of the various types of buildings, but this would require galleries to display. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I just spent the last hour reading this article and, after that, I wish I could give some constructive feedback or note areas of concern but this is a very well-written (and extremely interesting) contribution and I can't find any issues. DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. It was one of the last articles to be written, and benefited greatly from that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I don't pretend to understand the physics, but this is very well written and appears comprehensive. A few queries, but I'm scraping the barrel for things to criticise!:

Did I scare everybody off with the diffusion formula? I wanted to emphasise that they were doing some science. The math isn't beyond high level - we could go through it step by step in a single lecture. Stan Ulam recounted the story of a mathematician at Los Alamos who had sunk as low as a mathematician can go - he had written a paper with a decimal in it. (Poor bastard.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think if anything scares people off it's the sheer size of the article. It's so big that the page size script doesn't work; a very rough copy and paste into a word processor came up north of 12,000 words. If there's any trimming or splitting into daughter articles you can do, I'd recommend it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had noticed that and it's weird - something technical is going on. The main article is much larger and doesn't have this problem. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was the math. I have removed it and the page size script now works. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The actual population was about 3,500 by the end of 1943" I assume this includes support staff etc? Does it include families?
    Yes. Added this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did they maintain information security with so many people on-site?
    The Technical Area was sealed off; but scientists had access to most of what was going on through the seminars. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The MP Detachment, 4817th Service Command Unit" ... "The Provisional Engineer Detachment (PED), 4817th Service Command Unit" Is that right?
    Yes, that's right. The 4800 series was a block of numbers allocated to the 8th Service Command. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the accidental deaths that weren't science-related really worth mentioning? Canoeing and horseriding accidents could happen in any town.
    Fair enough. Reduced to the two famous accidents. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are Oppenheimer's reasons for resigning significant?
    Not enough for me to put them in his article, or for any of his biographers to put it in their books. He intended to return to teaching physics at Berkeley and Caltech; but this proved to impossible, as he kept having to go to Washington. Eventually he decoded to move back east. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2017 (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 Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Retribution (1941)[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Operation Retribution (1941) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Operation Retribution was the bombing of Belgrade on 6–7 April 1941 at the opening of the Invasion of Yugoslavia, and was ordered by Adolf Hitler as punishment for the coup d'etat that took place on 27 March 1941 and appeared (to Hitler at least) to repudiate the accession of Yugoslavia to the Axis. It resulted in the destruction of large parts of Belgrade and the deaths of thousands of civilians. Brave but ultimately futile resistance was put up by the pilots of the Royal Yugoslav Air Force. The main Luftwaffe commander responsible was captured by the Yugoslavs at the end of the war, and subsequently tried and executed. Scars from the bombing were still visible in 2008. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from The Bounder

Nicely put together. Just a few suggestions from me that won't stop a support:

  • It's quite an opening sentence that carries a lot. Worth considering a split, or moving some info out to a second sentence (the end part of "the first days of the World War II German-led Axis invasion of Yugoslavia" is a bit cumbersome after such a long stretch)
  • May be worth considering splitting the paragraph after "targets across Yugoslavia." to separate the attacks from their aftermath.
  • "union" is a slightly loaded term for the Anschluss (which was the propaganda-driven name). It was an annexation of the country, rather than a union.
  • May be worth adding the date that the photo was taken of the National Library of Serbia.

None of these are deal-breakers by any stretch, but I hope they help. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. All done. These are my edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicely done and I've moved to support on prose. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikki! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

Solid work here, some thoughts, mainly on content, for your consideration

  • The first sentence of the background: "...and came under increasing pressure..." It is not explicitly clear what the "pressure" is supposed to result in; presumably alignment with Germany, like the neighbouring countries. Perhaps reorder this first sentence to better relate the action and consequence. (I hope that makes sense!)
  • Yep. See what you think.
  • "On 27 and 28 March 1941 Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring transferred about 500 fighter and bomber aircraft from France and northern Germany.": Transferred to where? Romania perhaps (see below)?
  • Along Yugoslavia's borders, clarified.
  • "On the afternoon of 5 April, a British colonel visited ...and confirmed that the attack...": Presumably the confirmation was as a result of intercepts or similar by British Intelligence. I think adding this information will provide context to the reader; will the source support the addition of this?
  • No, the source isn't that specific.
  • "...Romanian-based Fliegerführer Arad...": so were these at least some of the aircraft involved in the bombing? The way it presently reads, it suggests that they weren't and the false alarm was caused by them going somewhere else.
  • Fliegerführer Arad consisted of fighters and divebombers, mostly used for close support of ground troops during the invasion. The main formation used in this operation was Luftflotte IV, operating out of western Austria, but Fliegerführer Arad did provide some fighter escort (JG 77).
  • "...with more than six badly damaged": should that be "with six more badly damaged"?
  • Yep. Done.
  • "On his return to base, the commander of the 51st Fighter Group was relieved of his command for failure to take action.": But he did take action in that the group was scrambled; it seems to me the reason was more a lack of success. Maybe rephrase?
  • Link Vienna.
  • "...downing 20 Yugoslav aircraft and destroying a further 44...": "downed" and "destroyed" appear to make more sense grammatically.
  • Done.
  • In the first paragraph of the aftermath section, you use dashes and "to" interchangeably to refer to ranges.
  • Done.
  • The Knell reference should be World War II not World War 2. The Google book page has it as "2" but when you drill onto the image of the title page, it is actually "II".
  • Done.

Cheers. Zawed (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Zawed! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, have added my support now. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This article is in great shape, and I have only minor comments:

  • "The next day, German troops entered Bulgaria from Romania, closing the ring around Yugoslavia" - was Yugoslavia able to receive aid via Greece?
  • Theoretically, but the Greeks were flat out fighting the Italians, and wouldn't make common cause with the Yugoslavs.
  • "a British colonel visited Mirković at the VVKJ base in Zemun and confirmed that the attack on Belgrade would commence at 06:30 the following morning" - how did the Yugoslavs or the British officer know the timing of the planned attack? (was infomation leaking in both directions ahead of the invasion?)
  • Hitler was furious when he found out about it, and the RSHA investigated it thoroughly afterwards, but it seems even the Yugoslav military attache in Berlin knew about it, so there was obviously a fair amount of intelligence flowing in all directions. I haven't seen anything that clearly states where the Brits got the information.
  • I think that "dive bombers" is usually written as two words
  • Quite right, fixed.
  • "Löhr replaced these general directions with specific military objectives at the last minute" - perhaps note though that these seem to have included/been facilities located within the city. If sources support it, you could note that this would have inevitably meant significant damage to non-military targets and civilian casualties due to the imprecision of bombing at the time.
  • The sources don't really make that point, it is sort of implied in all WWII bombing though, isn't it?
  • Perhaps tweak this to say "specific military objectives within the city" or similar to make it clearer that this was a fig leaf (the USAAF also claimed to be targeting transport and military targets in German cities when they were carpet bombing them due to the inaccuracy of bombing at the time) Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some aspects of the bombing remain unexplained, particularly the use of the aerial mines" - can this be clarified? The Germans frequently used aerial mines against British cities during the Blitz (the British did much the same with their blockbuster bombs), and presumably this was the purpose of the weapons. Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hadn't been aware of the use in the Blitz, but Boog, Krebs, et al note that Coventry was also targeted with aerial mines and notes "not all aspects of the bombing have as yet been clarified, in particular the purpose behind the dropping of seven aerial mines." It seems to me that the German thinking behind the use of aerial mines in this instance (in an invasion scenario) still isn't clear. I haven't seen any information about the specific targeting of the mines either. Do you think I need to change the way I've written this?

Support My comments are now addressed: great work Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The article looks great. Everything looks fine to me. Good job, PM. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about the Operation Punishment

I will like to know from the main editor what source it used for the Operation Punishment - was the April 1941 German bombing of Belgrade, the capital of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. My sources says that Operation Punishment was the codename for the Invasion of Yugoslavia, not just the bombing of Belgrade. Alongside the campaign order to the three branches of German Armed Forces (Directive 25), the Germans codenamed the Invasion of Yugoslavia "Operation Punishment" or "Unternehmen Strafgericht". Google books search gives similar results: Code-named “Operation Punishment,” the plan for the invasion of Yugoslavia... Can you please clarify?

Sure. It comes from Germany and the Second World War, Volume 3 by Gerhard Schreiber, Bernd Stegemann and Detlef Vogel, p. 497. I will clarify the lead in the body. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:25, 15 January 2017 (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 Iazyges (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Iazyges[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

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

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is my namesake article, that has just become a good article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, I really only looked at minor aspects as this isn't really an area I know anything about; I will have a read through more thoroughly later. In the meantime, I have a couple minor observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, "as a buffer tribe-state, following their policy of using small..." --> " as a buffer tribe-state, following the adoption of a policy of using small..."
  • "the Iazyges and replaced by Zanticus...": the link for Zanticus is a self pointing redirect, so I would suggest either removing it, or creating a stub for it
  • the Commons link should be moved up to the top of the last section per WP:LAYOUT and the External links should be the last section
  • I'd suggest moving the Notes above the Citations, and they should probably have in line references themselves
  • the formatting of the Further reading entries is inconsistent due to the inconsistent use of templates (some entries use none, some use "cite book" and another uses "citation")
  • capitalisation and punctuation: "Dacia land of Transylvania, cornerstone of ancient eastern Europe" --> "Dacia: Land of Transylvania, Cornerstone of Ancient Eastern Europe.
  • "(Rev. ed. ed.)" --> "(Rev. ed.)"
(A result of me adding in Rev. ed, unaware that it automated the addition of ed.
  • inconsistent presentation, compare: "Brian W. Jones, The Emperor Domitian, Routledge, 1992, p. 150" v. "Wellesley, Kenneth (2002). Year of the Four Emperors. Routledge. p. 133. ISBN 978-1-134-56227-5."

It's a result of a situation in which it is "widely" known that it happened, but I couldn't find any other references for it, I plan to either replace it or remove it, if a better source comes along or a better source disproves it (respectively).Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added in more sources for it, one that was previously used, and one that (claims to) have been written by Ján Steinhübel, an expert historian on Hungary and Slovakia, I believe that its claim is genuine, and that it likely is an excerpt of a book called "Short history of Slovakia" he made. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, good to see you've found other refs for it. I would suggest just removing the "everything2" ref, though, as it is doesn't meet the definition of a reliable source per WP:RS and will be a barrier to promotion for this article, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)>[reply]
  • User:AustralianRupert I believe I have addressed all of your suggestions, but feel free to tell me if not. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day, sorry to take so long, but I have taken another look at the article now and have a couple more comments/queries/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Iazyges first make their appearance in the historical record on the northern shores..." I wonder if it would make sense here to mention one or two of the major historical records to mention them at that time?
    • Same sentence: I wonder if the rough date of this could be mentioned?
    • some of the sections in the History section are quite small, to the extent that I'd suggest potentially merging a couple. For instance the 2nd and 1st Century BC sections could potentially be combined under a header such as "Early period" or "Before Common Era" or something else...?
    • I'd suggest probably moving the 472 AD killings into the Aftermath section as that section seems to mention something that happened before then.
    • are there references for these two kings: Uzafer and Zizayis?
    • "The Iazyges are mentioned by the geographer Claudius Ptolemy in his Geography as ...": I think that this probably should be worked into the body of the article as it seems that currently it is only mentioned in the lead
    • in the Further reading section, are there ISBN or OCLC numbers for the works listed?
    • given that the two links that are currently in the External links section are being used as in line citations, there is probably no need for the External links section at all. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • G'day, I've checked your recent changes and they look good to me. My only remaining concern is the last couple of small sections which should probably be merged in together. I've made a suggested edit to combine a couple, but please feel free to revert if you disagree. I would also suggest trying to work the single sentence Culture section in somewhere else (potentially the first paragraph of the History section). Otherwise, the Culture section should be expanded if it is going to stay on its own. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added my support now. You will need to resolve the issue raised by Cagwinn, though, before FAC if that is where you are intending to take this article. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • is communication/communicate used in the British English sense of transport/transportation/means of transport? This meaning is unavailable in AmerEng, and I didn't see a BrEng template atop the page.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncertain, I will check the sources, It's currently supposed to be American english, but thats only becuase I wrote it all as such. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi: the source book was published by Cambridge, so it is likely british english, however I find it more likely that by communicate, it may be the universal communicate, as they often joined each other on raids. I am uncertain if the fact its from a british source neccesarily implies transport/trade. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it means roads.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi: hm, How do you think it should be changed, perhaps "Could communicate with the Roxolani" be changed to "could travel to the area of the Roxolani"? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another source, Dacia: Land of Transylvania, confirmed that it meant visited, I have changed it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be something wrong with this sentence: "Under Augustus, there were four legions stationed along the Rhine, with four being stationed in Mainz and another four in Cologne."  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Iazyges: Unless I'm wrong, Wikipedia informs me that both Mainz and Cologne are on the Rhine... so if there are four in each, how does that add up to only four on the Rhine? Unless my geography is wrong.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to the sharp angle of the river" why would that make it harder to defend?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I presume because it limited the size of the ships, or else ships had to be more manueverable in order to be used. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also may be because the Romans tactics of a rectangular army division didn't do well on sharp corners. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* the footnotes are visually identical to the citations; suggest drawing a clear distinction by using {{efn-ua}} or {{refn}} or similar.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC) * this source says their scale armor was made of horse hooves; the article says metal.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

  • Please forgive me, but I need to bow out. It is the busy season in my job, plus I have research to do, and then whatever Wikipedia time I have is spent on my own project. I do apologize.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lingzhi Totally understandable, thanks for all the suggestions so far! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Constantine[edit]

For me too this is not a subject I am terribly familiar with. I've already given some feedback in the past to Iazyges on the article, and most of my comments there still stand.

  • I don't see the point of the "2nd century BC", "1st century BC" headers; stub sections like this ought to be merged into what this is really about, i.e. "Early history", or something like that

  • A major concern is the comprehensiveness of the article; I see tertiary and secondary works on related or generalist topics, but none on the Iazyges themselves in the sources. Surely there must be some works that deal with them, or the Sarmatians, specifically. This would help to address the problem that the article is currently a chronological listing, and lacks both an internal narrative structure as well as many of the subjects I'd like to see in an article about an ancient tribe, such as cultural aspects, military organization and tactics (they are best known as warriors, after all), archaeological traces, etc. Quite how the Iazyges are to be differentiated from the Sarmatians in general would also be interesting to know.
  • As mentioned earlier, we have little to no idea how they differentiated, or if the Romans made an arbitrary decision to call them Iazyges. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, then what is the basis of them existing as a separate topic? Surely there must have been some distinction, perhaps as a sub-tribe or something similar? What does modern scholarship think about it? Constantine ✍ 21:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found a source saying that unlike the Sarmatians of Asia or far east europe the Iazyges lived sedentary lifestyles. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's definitely in the right direction. I am sure that more can be found on the same vein. Anything on language, social structure, religion, etc?Constantine ✍ 23:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a related note, I'd prefer to see the titles of the sources in the "Bibliography" section, and convert the references to a more manageable format like Harvard. Full-title references are hard to read and follow.
  • Not necessarily; anything in WP:SRF is valid. This is not a sine qua non, but in my experience it is a does considerably help readers follow the individual references. Constantine ✍ 21:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the section "2nd century BC", how do we know that? Was this reported by an ancient author, or is there archaeological evidence? For either of these, it is better to explicitly name and describe it. In general, when describing events that were (probably) outside the direct observation of contemporary historians, or events and dates that may be conjectural, it is best to ascribe them explicitly to a primary source.
  • It might also be a good idea to begin the article with a "Primary sources" section, dealing briefly with the primary sources that mention the Iazyges. It helps readers get a picture of just how much material there is to go on them, and helps the article writer by removing the need to introduce new primary sources every time along the rest of the article.
  • "Under Augustus, there were four legions stationed along the Rhine, with four being stationed in Mainz and another four in Cologne." Something does not add up here.

  • "By the turn of the 1st century, [..] twelve legions were stationed along the Danube" Again, the strict chronological division is not meaningful here. This section clearly describes an ongoing process of the shift of Roman defensive focus from the Rhine to the Danube, where the Iazyges obviously played a role. I'd include this simply under "2nd century AD", and rename this to "Dacian Wars", with "After the Dacian Wars" as a separate section.
  • "it appears to have been satisfactory to the Iazyges, as no wars between Rome and them are recorded for another half century." is in direct contradiction with the mention of a conflict in 123.
  • "Octavio Grapo" looks like the (modern) Italian form of a Roman name.
Hm, perhaps Octavius Grapous, I will look into it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sharp angle of the river." I am unsure what this means.
I believe it means it turns "quickly" , or the direction of the river changes within a short distance. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any indication of what happened between 184 and 472, or at least why the article skips the period? No sources? Conversely, why do the Iazyges suddenly reappear in 472, three centuries after their last mention? What is the relationship of the Argaragantes and the Limigantes to the Iazyges?
  • There is very little mention, someone articles refer to raids, but I haven't found good sources for them. The relationship is (possibly) that the Iazyges had a power struggle and a part of them were enslaved, and (possibly) that Iazyges enslaved the Roxolani, or vice versa. It may be better to remove it unless we can find better sources. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, sounds complicated indeed, but that is precisely why it should be covered. Take your time to find the appropriate sources and do a thorough job of presenting and explaining the various theories Constantine ✍ 21:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following perfectly with the "hide in plain sight" tactic, the source we were looking for was referenced to it, I have added it in, the Iazyges were enslaved and became the Limigantes, and the Roxolani enslaved them and became the Aragantes. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* "it is said that he wanted to entirely exterminate the Iazyges" by whom?

  • "It has been theorized that..." by whom?
  • I have removed this bit because the source appears to be entirely unrelated, and the theory as I have seen doesn't have much backing or evidence. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some believe that the unusually armored horsemen..." again, who asserts this? Perhaps a section dealing with the possible Iazyges/Sarmatian origin of the myth might be suitable?

I hope this was helpful. Right now, the article provides a good overview of the history of the Iazyges, but there are many angles that are left uncovered in terms of comprehensiveness, and the treatment is rather episodic in nature. Constantine ✍ 14:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After a second review, I see improvement, but am still unsatisfied with the article. Despite the addition on sedentarism, I still miss the ethnological and cultural context and their relation to other neighbouring tribes, especially the other Sarmatians. This is briefly mentioned in the lede, but not in the main body of the article. Furthermore, the Sarmatians article seems to suggest that the Metanastae were distinct from the Iazyges. I also miss any reference as to how we know where they were in the 3rd-2nd centuries BC, particularly when the article states right at the beginning that they are "first documented in Claudius Ptolemy's Geography", a 2nd-century AD work. For that matter, that assertion is problematic since the "Primary sources" section also mentions Strabo and Pliny, who lived well before Ptolemy. Unfortunately, this rather elementary error undermines my confidence in the comprehensiveness and completeness of the article as it stands. That is also why I recommended a full treatment, rather than a listing, of the primary sources (including, if available, any archaeological evidence) at the beginning in a dedicated section: it is good for the interested reader to know which events/periods/topics were covered by which primary source. On minor issues, "Octavio Grapo" is still unresolved, and the lead section is not a summary of the article per WP:LEDE. 09:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Constantine ✍

Sorry I've been late, today has been a little hectic for me. The relationship's between them aren't well documented, and changed a lot. I have it to Octavius Grapo, if you think the last name needs to be changed just say the word. I am not sure about the primary sources listing being helpful. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for the larger issue on the Metanastae one, I am unsure of how to resolve it. While it is mentioned a lot no singular source appears able to satisfactorily explain it, almost every source seems to either not mention it, contradict itself, or else list multiple possibilities. If you find a good source for it let me know. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the images are missing alt texts, and if you intend to bring this to FA, most of the maps are unreferenced. In addition, I am worried about the use of images depicting generic Sarmatians, but being labelled in the article as "Iazyges". It implies to the uninitiated that we know these to be Iazyges, and implicitly, that there is a visual way of distinguishing the Iazyges from other peoples. That is wrong. I recommend making the captions more factual, e.g. "Sculpted image of a Sarmatian, 16th century" and "Roman cavalry (left) fighting Sarmatian cavalry (right), from Trajan's Column"; you may of course add something to the point of "Iazyges would look similar". Constantine ✍ 09:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, again, some improvements, but I don't see major changes. So I will reiterate: in the article, the history of the Iazyges is covered rather well from the moment they enter into contact with the Romans, but the period before and their history apart from their conflicts with the Romans are, to my mind at least, unsatisfactory. I have pointed out the areas for improvement in my previous comments, and I don't see many changes so far in that direction. Perhaps I am asking too much, but I cannot escape the feeling that, as regards comprehensiveness, it still needs some work. I come off the article knowing what the Iazyges did, but not really who they were, or what place they really occupied among the tribes of eastern Europe from an ethnological or archaeological standpoint. I realize that scholarship may be thin, but if so, it should be presented in full, and analyzed: this is what we know about them (because of source X, or archaeological find B, etc.), this is what we guess, this is what we don't know at all. Frankly, the fact that so much of the article is built upon generalist and Roman-centred books does not convince me that the academic literature on the subject has been exhausted. A brief survey in GBooks and GScholar points to such works as J. Harmatta, Studies on the history of the Sarmatians (1950), which is helpfully online, or this 1913 source which covers the primary sources very well. Before I support, at least these works need to be taken into account.
A minor remark: "last1=Ash|first1=Tacitus; translated by Kenneth Wellesley; revised with a new introduction by Rhiannon" and "|last1=Knight|first1=Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen ; ed. by Max|" are clearly incorrect. Constantine ✍ 15:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the alt texts, you need to describe the image, not what it is meant to show. It needs to be a textual representation of the image, e.g. "yellow map with rivers and names of the tribes in various colours" ;). Constantine ✍ 15:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: I have added in what you have given me, it does add a lot on the burial sites, and economic problems, which is good. I am still looking for more, and will work on the alt text. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: I have added in everything and done the alt texts, and added citations to all of the images. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More context has been provided as to the Iazyges and their interactions with the rest of the barbaricum, not just the Romans, and although some improvement is still possible, I consider it adequate for an A-class article. Hence at this point I support the nomination. Constantine ✍ 17:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mr rnddude (talk)[edit]

Support - My concerns about content and prose have been addressed satisfactorily. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Criterion A2

:*... the Iazyges shattered the Roman Legio XXI Rapax in battle. - well, more accurately they annihilated the entire legion ending its existence from there on. Much like Legio XVII and XIX in Teutoberg forest.

  • The battle on the frozen Danube river is not mentioned. I thought it had been, but, this decisive engagement which eventually forced the Iazyges to surrender to Marcus Aurelius has no mention beyond The Iazyges probably surrendered in 175. There's too little context to explain why the Iazyges surrendered to Marcus Aurelius. The article is not particularly expansive at 27k bytes and I don't think this battle could have it's own spin-off article, but, even if it could, some mention of it is I think necessary here. For sources feel free to refer to LXIII Blood on the Ice and The Roman Empire and the Silk Route which cover the battle in fair detail. It doesn't have to be an exhaustive discussion, but, at least a small paragraph or a few sentences should be included. This episode even features Pertinax himself.
  • Is there no mention of the Iazyges from the second through to the fifth centuries?
Accounts of them are sparse, and reliable sources hard to find, most mentions of them are short, I did find one about a raid in 348 and added it however. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Criterion A3

  • I support Cplakidas' comment above with regard to section headings. The 2nd and 1st century B.C. headings give the appearance of incompleteness. There may be nothing more to add, but, it gives the appearance of there being more to add.

*Criterion A4 - I note that copy-edits are underway so some of these comments may become moot before I upload them;

  • In 6 AD and again in 16 AD, the Iazyges raided their border with Rome. - Eh, I think "raided across their border with Rome." would make more sense, or alternativel, the Iazyges conducted raids across their border with Rome.
  • However, in 20 AD the Iazyges moved west along the Carpathians into the Hungarian steppes, and settled in the steppes between the Danube and the Tisza river, fully taking it from the Dacians. - "taking complete control over it from the Dacians".
  • Domitian's campaign was entirely unsuccessful; however, a victory in a minor skirmish allowed him to claim it a victory, even though he ended up paying the King of Dacia, Decebalus, an annual tribute of eight million sesterces in tribute to end the war. - repetitive, needs a rewrite. Perhaps; Domitian's campaign was almost entirely unsuccessful, he was able to claim only a single victory in a minor skirmish and was eventually forced to pay the Dacian king Decebalus an annual tribute of eight million sesterces in exchange for an end to the war.
  • Actually, check that I haven't made this prose changes myself. Every body else does copy-edits, may as well jump in and help out. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Criterion A5

  • File:Roman provinces in a 1867 school atlas.jpg - Needs an appropriate license for use with in the U.S. as that is required by all images used on the English Wikipedia. In this case, {{PD-1923}} or {{PD-art}} are appropriate.

  • Other comments;
  • By the way; Iazyges do use source or visual editing?
Source. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll post my thoughts in greater detail soon. This just immediately jumped out at me. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for being somewhat late and inactive, I have to leave again, but I will finish them as best as I can when I return. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from 15/01/2017
  • Criterion A4;
  • Lede; Is it possible to condense the lede into three paragraphs instead of four. Most specifically, the third paragraph which is a lone sentence and feels like it belongs at the end of the second paragraph.

 Done

  • Unlike the Sarmatians of the Eurasian Steppe, who largely lived nomadic lives, the Iazyges lived sedentary lives, meaning that they built towns. Very repetitive "lived ... lives" x 2. Rephrase recommendations; Unlike the Sarmatians of the Eurasian Steppe who were largely nomadic, the Iazyges lived sedentary lifestyles and built towns.

 Done

however if this is true the Iazyges that stayed along the Sea of Azov are never mentioned again as such -> however if this is true, the Iazyges that remained along the Sea of Azov are never mentioned again.

 Done

In the 2nd century BC, the Iazyges began to migrate west to the steppe near the Lower Dniester. One possible explanation of this was that the Roxolani were also migrating west, due to pressure from the Aorsi this needs a more thorough explanation. Specifically, what does the migration of the Roxolani have to do with the migration of the Iazyges? were the Roxolani putting pressure on the Iayzges to keep moving, or is this a coincidence? The answer is spread across 283 and 284 of the book; In the second century BC the Roxolani, under pressure from their eastern neightbours the Aorsi, moved westwards across the Don, forcing the Iazyges to migrate westwards to the steppe of the lower Dneister .... Though I'm not sure I understand Cunliffe's statement, it strikes me as being contradictory. A moment earlier he states that the Roxolani lived to the west of the Iazyges near the Volga river, how would their movement further west - I.e. away from the Iazyges - result in them forcing the Iazyges westward? Granted I figure this is Cunliffe's error as the Volga river is well east of the Don and Dnieper rivers, not west. I.e. the Roxolani are far east of the Iazyges.

 Done

In early 92 <- In early 92 AD, ...

 Done

In May 92, <- In May 92 AD, ...

 Done

Roman military resources had become centred along the Danube instead of the Rhine. <- sentence fragment, when did their resources become centred on the Danube? within a hundred years of Augustus' rule if I followed it. Also, what do you mean "by the time of Augusutus' rule"? he was the first ruler of the Roman Empire, there were none before him. I would rewrite this paragraph as; During the time of Augustus's rule, there were eight legions stationed along the Rhine, four stationed in Mainz and another four in Cologne. Within a hundred years of Augustus' rule, however, Roman military resources had become centred along the Danumbe instead of the Rhine; nine legions were stationed along the Danube and one at the Rhine.

 Done @Mr rnddude: I have made all the changes you suggested. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Iazyges a couple more points and then I think I'm done;
  • The Roxolani surrendered first, so it is likely that the Romans replaced their client king and exiled the other king. -> The Roxolani surrendered first, so it is likely that the Romans exiled and then replaced their client king with one of their choosing.

 Done

  • However, the offer was refused, and was deposed by the Iazyges and replaced by Zanticus -> "and he was deposed by the Iazyges". The offer itself, I imagine, could not be deposed.

 Done

  • Other than that, the article appears to generally be fine and I haven't noticed any other missing content. I'll support with the last couple changes. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • I am a bit busy right now, I'll do a thorough re-review in a couple of days. Constantine ✍ 09:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too am busy. Perhaps early next week I'll be able to continue on giving my review. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New section[edit]

@Mr rnddude, Lingzhi, Cplakidas, and AustralianRupert: I have changed the article quite a bit, I have changed all books to SFN's, Cplakidas is there a way to make SFN's for websites? I have found nothing on that. I also added in a piece about the possibility of some of the Iazyges not moving. As a lot of sources disagree or contradict each other, and there is a lack of sources willing to talk about any remainder after the time the Iazyges moved, I feel that discussion about them can't really be expanded beyond a few sentences, but if anyone has found a source that is more in depth please share it. I will be away from the 26th to the 31st, with limited access to internet, so I won't be very active. If anyone has more suggestions or problems with the article, feel free to raise them in the meantime and I will try to resolve them when I get back. Thank you all for your efforts! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source that I have added for the possible Iazyges that stayed behind says that the slave master race the Arcagarantes didn't build houses, but the Limigantes did. This may contradict the sentence above it that says that the Iazyges built or at least lived in towns, however the above also mentions that the Roxolani enslaved the Iazyges and became the Arcagarantes, so I am of the belief that it isn't necessarily contradictory. Thoughts? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, sfn templates can be used for websites: if you take a look at Australian Flying Corps, you will see one option for using them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @AustralianRupert: I forgot to ping you. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iazyges, I was planning on having a look over the weekend. Sorry for the delay, but with the holidays on the one hand and the "return to work" hectic afterwards, time has been short for a considered review. Best, Constantine ✍ 09:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I will have to leave this to others more qualified in the subject matter. My support stands, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be back at working through this nomination Thursday/Friday and then Sunday/Monday. Ping me if I haven't left any comments by Friday. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Mr rnddude: per instruction above. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I haven't forgotten. Expect some comments a little later today. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2017 (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 Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Siege of Arrah[edit]

Nominator(s): Exemplo347 (talk)

Siege of Arrah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because this article has recently completed a Good Article Review and it has been copy-edited by the GOCE. I believe this article meets the stated criteria and is at the level of other A-Class Military History articles. The article is free of any minor errors/typos/style issues, has no major omissions and does not go into unnecessary detail. I will be looking to nominate this article as a Featured Article Candidate in the near future so any suggestions for tweaks that are required at this stage would be extremely helpful. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • In order to use the PD-UK-Unknown tag, you have to identify in the image description what steps you have taken to try to discern the authorship of the work
 Resolved Exemplo347 (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ross_Mangles.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Same with File:Little-house-arrah.png
 Resolved Exemplo347 (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Seal_of_Bihar.svg: what is the copyright status of the original design? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Unable to confirm - I was unable to confirm the copyright status of the original design. I have therefore removed the template that this image was part of. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: I believe I have addressed your concerns. Let me know if there are any further issues with the images. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are not. As a quick comment though, you should look at your citation style for newspapers - |title= is intended for article title, not newspaper name or date. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Citations fixed Thanks for your help. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: Nice work with this, I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • " Mr. Littledale, a Judge working..." is this person's first name known?
  • "General Lloyd": is the first name of this officer known?
 Both Done All I could find were initials, despite extensive searches. I have added these. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I'm pretty sure it was George Lloyd, per Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: A-E by Tony Jaques. This also says George: [61]. I will see if I can find anything about Littledale. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I believe it was Arthur Littledale: [62]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help with those! I've amended the article accordingly. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "10th and 37th Regiment of Foot" --> "10th and 37th Regiments of Foot"
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "25 mi (40.2 km) east of Arrah, the 7th, 8th and 40th Regiments of Bengal..." I believe that the MOS prefers that sentences do not start with numerals, so I would suggest something like "About 25 mi (40.2 km) east of Arrah, the 7th, 8th and 40th Regiments of Bengal..." or something else might work...
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "yoke of a foreign invader." by George Trevelyan in his 1864..." suggest removal of the full stop after "invader"
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • are there any OCLC or ISBNs for the books listed in the References (only one has one currently, but you should be able to find OCLC numbers for the older works at www.worldcat.org)?
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 50, Singh uses a different format to the other book sources
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and there are plans to make it a tourist attraction", probably best to provide an indicative date of when this was reported
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 05:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! Exemplo347 (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Excellent work. The Indian Mutiny is an interesting piece of history that we don't see here very often.

  • Suggest adding {{main|Indian Rebellion of 1857}} to the background section.
I thought about doing that but the Indian Rebellion of 1857 is already linked in the lead of the article and again in the Infobox (and once more in a transcluded template) - I'm not sure if this would be over-linking? Exemplo347 (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd include it if I was writing the article, but if you decide not to that's equally valid.
  • "On 8 June, a letter was received from" suggest re-writing this sentence in the active voice for clarity.
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The European population in Arrah spent that night" Do we know roughly how many people this was?
 Not actionable Unfortunately none of the sources I found (including the first-hand accounts) give even a rough indication of the amount of people. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; it's an interesting detail, but if it's not in the sources there's nothing we can do.
Agreed, I would like to know just for reasons of my own curiosity. It was a big house apparently that I believe is still standing, so there may have been quite a lot of room. Never mind! Exemplo347 (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there an impact on the wider Indian Mutiny?
Apart from the immediate aftermath there doesn't appear to have been any wider impact, during the mutiny, of these events. In The Competition Wallah (1864) the author specifically notes that the events have been almost forgotten, not even commemorated by any memorial. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth adding something to the article about the relative obscurity these days?

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section entitled "Legacy" - hopefully it makes sense. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: is it worth including the term "Indian Mutiny" in the article somewhere, perhaps in the opening like "took place during the Indian Rebellion of 1857 (also known as the Indian Mutiny)"? At least in Britain, "Indian Mutiny" is the most commonly recognised name for the conflict, and "Indian Rebellion of 1857" sounds like a title only Wikipedia would use (along the lines of "association football"). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done That makes sense to me! Exemplo347 (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Let me know what you think of the changes. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm happy with the changes and I believe this comfortably meets the A-class criteria. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:21, 14 January 2017 (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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Antioch (218)[edit]

Nominator(s): Mr rnddude (talk)

Battle of Antioch (218) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I am now confident that the article meets all or most of the A-class criteria. In the last review one of the major opposing reasons was the dependence on the article on primary sources. I have cut out all but a half-dozen references to Dio for only minor trivial information. The other question was with regards to the prose of the article. I believe I have addressed both of these concerns and am now resubmitting this for another A-class review. Summarizing the article topic; The article is on an ancient battle fought near the ancient city of Antioch between the forces of Emperor Macrinus and his rival and successor Elagabalus. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I think I've done everything right. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • the citations use clickable citations but the links do not work due to what are called "harvnb" errors as they are missing anchors (such as "ref=harv" in the citation templates). If you install this script, it will help you to identify these errors;
  • are there ISBNs or OCLC numbers for all the works in the References section? These can usually be found at www.worldcat.org
  •  Done - Anything pre-20th century won't have ISBN's and OCLC's although I've added ISBN's for Dunstan, Mennen and Goldsworthy.
  • Huh, apparently they may have OCLC's. Well, thanks for the additions. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • page ranges in citations generally use "pp." instead of "p.", for instance "pp. 179–180" (if a range) or "p. 179" (if a single page)
  • the infobox seems a bit lopsided, is there a way to make it split evenly between the two sides? I think if you use break tags, it might fix the issue
  • Have to be honest, I am not sure what you mean by this. I think you mean that that the left hand side for Macrinus is larger than the side for Elagabalus. I think is a trick of the eyes as both sides are set to the left side making one look larger than the other. That and the image is a copy from a book that was taken at a slight angle. If it's the strength section of the infoboxes, then I hope this makes it look more even. Cheers for the review AustralianRupert. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Volume 2 of A History of Rome, is it this: [63]? If so, it is part of Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopædia. The citations probably should be changed to reflect Robert Bell as the author, with the series appended also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All my concerns have been addressed, and I reviewed this last time, so I've added my support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close to a support

  • Looking a lot better in terms of the referencing - thanks for all your work on this. Comments below:
  • In the lead, it talks about "a disenfranchised soldier"; this is later explained to be "a soldier who was incensed at being declined the rank of centurion". Is "disenfranchised" really right? I think most readers would assume this has something to do with the right to vote etc.
  • I was using disenfranchised in the sense of; deprived of a privilege. Which Materianus would have been by having been denied the position of centurion. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can mean that (e.g. a privilege of automatic promotion etc.), but without any additional context in the lead, I don't think any reader will conclude that is what was meant. I'd recommend "a disgruntled soldier" or some similar phrasing, avoiding the "disenfranchised" word altogether. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dudley suggested disaffected to replace disenfranchised. So already dealt with, but, disgruntled would have worked equally well. Thanks. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was proclaimed emperor by the soldiers of Legio III Gallica (Gallic Third Legion) at the camp in Raphanea on 16 May 218" - "the camp" doesn't seem right, as we haven't mentioned it before. "their camp"?
  • The lead tells us a lot about the background and aftermath, but not actually very much about the battle itself; it just says "The battle took place less than a month later. Having lost the battle, Macrinus returned to Antioch once again." I'd expect to see a bit more of the "Battle" section summarised in this, to be honest.
  • I've expanded the lede to summarize the actual battle, hopefully is better.  Done Mr rnddude (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we describe in line (and perhaps link) who some of the historians are when first introduced? e.g. "based on a story mentioned by Herodian and supported by Gibbons (sic)" depends on the reader knowing who both Herodian and Gibbon were. If that ran "based on a story mentioned by the Roman writer Herodian and supported by the 18th-century historian Edward Gibbon", for example, you wouldn't have that dependency. Similarly Scott, Dio, Icks, etc.
  • "Other sources either agree with Dio that the battle took place near Antioch, with one source, Downey, " - "sources" read oddly here. I'd normally assume a "source" was contemporary with the period, but Downey is presumably a modern historian? "Other historians either agree..."?
  • "Despite the numerical superiority of Gannys' army of at least two full legions, faced with what levies Macrinus was able to accrue, the engagement had begun in Macrinus' favour with the soldiers led by Gannys turning to flee after the Praetorian Guards had managed to break through the enemy line." - I found this a bit of a mouthful. How about: "Gannys' army, comprising at least two full legions, had a numerical superiority over whatever levies Macrinus had been able to accrue. Nonetheless, the engagement began in Macrinus' favour with the soldiers led by Gannys turning to flee after the Praetorian Guards had managed to break through the enemy line."? (NB: I might have gone for "raise" rather than "accrue" myself - you normally "raise a levy", don't you?)
  • "Prior to battle Macrinus had the Praetorian Guard set aside their scaled armour breastplates and grooved shields in favour of lighter oval shields, thus making them lighter and more manoeuvrable and also negating the advantage of light Parthian lancers (lanciarii)." - if we're solely using a primary source, this needs to be attributed to Dio; similarly one or two others like it. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review Hchc2009, I've made an attempt at addressing each of your concerns. For the disenfranchisement comment, I've explained the context behind my word choice. Any chance you know of a better term that would mean the same thing? Mr rnddude (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "Emperor Macrinus and his contender Elagabalus" I would prefer "rival" to "contender".
  • I don't think it is worth mentioning Immae. I can't find any information about this place, so it will not help the reader.
  • You can't use disenfranchised as it means taking away a privilege, not refusing to grant it. OED quotes a writer in 1893 saying "There could..be no legal act disenfranchising woman, since she was never legally enfranchised". You could say disaffected or a soldier who had been denied promotion.
  • "Macrinus successfully concluded a peace with Parthia, however, it came at further great cost to Rome." I don't think you can use "however" here (unless you put a semi-colon after "Parthia"). I suggest "but" instead.
  • "The sum was called into question by professor Scott due to its sheer enormity and because Dio is known for being unreliable when discussing finances." This is clumsy and refers to Scott as if he had already been mentioned. Maybe "The sum is questioned by historian Andrew Scott on the ground that it is too high to be credible and because Dio is known for being unreliable on finances."
  • "reinstating the fiscal policies of Septimius Severus" This looks wrong. Septimius Severus famous dying advice to his sons was "Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, and scorn all other men". His policy was the opposite of Macrinus's.
  • Caracalla raised the pay of soldiers and increased spending elsewhere. Macrinus reversed Caracalla's fiscal changes thereby effectively re-instating the policies that Septimius had. Septimius spent more than his predecessors but still a lot less than Caracalla. Will think about possibly rephrasing this. Attempt made, nothing special, but, hopefully sufficient. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need to have references at the end of each sentence if they are all from the same source, particularly as you do not follow this policy consistently. See for example in the last paragraph of 'Death of Caracalla and rise of Macrinus' and the second of 'Rise of Elagabalus'.
  • I've removed redundant citations, I think I've hit them all.  Done Mr rnddude (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Julia Maesa took the opportunity to inform the soldiers, either truthfully or not, that Elagabalus was Caracalla's son". Well all statements are truthful or not. Maybe "it is not known whether truthfully"
  • "Elagabalus was immediately hailed Antoninus after Caracalla" There is no explanation of what Antoninus means here.
  • In Elegabalus' case, him being referred to Antoninus was to create a connection between him and Caracalla (Marcus Aurelius Antoninus). Explained a little in the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Macrinus might have been able to stop the rebellion in this early stage, but could not decide on a course of action and remained at Antioch." *This is an expression of an opinion, so it should be attributed as "In the view of Gibbon,"
  • "the archaeologist Downey" His full name should be given at the first mention. Below you have "one historian, Downey". You do not need "one historian" as he has already been mentioned.
  • "The balance of power had been transferred from the Senate to the army; as such the emperor of Rome was decided by the soldier while the Senate existed solely to officiate state affairs without any real authority." The grammar has gone wrong here.
  • "During and after Caracalla's reign the position of the Senate had been considerably weakened." This is misleading. The source says by the early third century - the change preceded Caracalla's reign.
  • You are correct, I'd written it differently on the basis that Caracalla's reign technically started in 198 - thus from him onwards. I've rephrased anyway so;  Done Mr rnddude (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Downey, suggests that both battles" Both battles? You have only mentioned one.
  • Well, one battle but in two different places. Downey assumes that both the battle described by Dio (at Immae) and the one as described by Herodian (at the border of Syria Phoenice and Coele - in Lebanon basically) were two separate events. I've made an attempt at rephrasing for clarity. Let me know if it's satisfactory. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Had Macrinus remained in battle it is plausible that he might have won the battle and thus secured his position as emperor." This is another expression of opinion which needs attribution to Downey and/or Gibbon.
  • You need to give the full names of Crevier and Icks at first mention.
  • "Macrinus found out about his son's death" You have not mentioned his son's death at this point.
  • I've moved sentences around for chronological purposes. Should be satisfactory now. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dio, Cassius (n.d.). Roman History." You need to give publication details of the edition you are using. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Published by Harvard University Press for the Loeb Classical Library in 1927 and reprinted in 1955. I believe the publisher and ISBN are the only things I put in the reference, not the publisher's date? Mr rnddude (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not look right to me. 1. Libraries index a Roman writer as Cassius Dio, not Dio, Cassius. I would use |author=Cassius Dio rather than the first and last format. 2. I think you should give the year, e.g. as |year=1927 |orig-year= c.230. 3. Similarly with Gibbon you should show the edition you are using (not the 1776 one unless you actually have it!) so people can check your actual source. I would add |orig-year=1776. Nikki have I got it right? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a PDF copy of one produced by Fred de Fau & Company and published in 1906. So no problem with handling that. Also dealt with Dio, Cassius -> Cassius Dio. Though that change made a mess of the harvnb citations which have also been fixed. -  Done Mr rnddude (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, give the full bibliographic details of the source/version you looked at. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dudley Miles thanks for your comments, I'll address them over the next couple days. Also, disaffected seems like a good replacement term. Will use that instead. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, accidental ping cause I moved my comment, I've covered most things done for the time being. Cheers. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • I don't know how you do things here at A-class review. I don't know whether I should Oppose or simply suggest that this article needs a complete top-to-bottom (or bottom-to-top, the method I use) copy edit. I have many things on my plate and it would be several days or more before I could finish it... but others could do it of course...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well Lingzhi the choice is really yours on this. You can oppose the promotion if you think that the article isn't at the A-class standard, you can leave a set of comments if you think it could get to A-class with some work, and of course you can support the promotion once you're satisfied that the article has met expectations and/or requirements. I'll go over it and copy-edit it as best as I can, since you did mention it and will ping you when I've done so, thanks. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, one minor prose contention I do have is -> Thus, reign of Macrinus as emperor of Rome ended after nearly fourteen months. This doesn't appear to me to be an improvement on what was there before; Thus, Macrinus' reign as emperor ended after nearly fourteen months. I tried adding the clearly missing "the" from your change, but, "the reign of Macinus" doesn't sound right to me at all. Maybe; Macrinus' reign as emperor of Rome ended after nearly fourteen months (or) replace Macrinus with his. The rest of your prose changes, however, are a significant improvement to what was there, thanks for the effort. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I forgot to bring a "the" to the party... I guess the question in my mind is how long the nom will run given that it already has supports. If the nom can easily run 3 or so more weeks, then there is no reason to oppose yet. If not, then there is.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should naturally close in something over a week, actually it could already have been closed as a pass as 3 supports is a passing mark, but, with your late addition comments I'm fairly certain it'll stay open for at least a couple of weeks so that I can address your comments. A fourth uninvolved party has to close it and they will definitely see the comments you've put up. Hope that helps. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could try to ce but I have shtuff to do. CE requires genuine concentration (and thus taxes my scarce cognitive resources); other reviewing tasks (e.g., finding missing refs) are frequently paint-by-numbers. You could also ask someone else to ce... but I can do it if given time.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll go through and tackle it myself first, I'll try your bottom up approach. Afterwards, I'll post a comment here notifying all involved that I've done my copy-edit. After that, when you get a chance take a look, and notify me if more work needs to be done or when you get the chance feel free to copy-edit the article yourself as well. I did take a look at GOCE but they are backlogged severely and I doubt they'd get to this article within the next month at least, so, that's probably not a time equitable solution. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is Emesa on the mpa? Is it Hemesa (since Emesa is now called Homs, this seems reasonable)? If so, then the two supposed battles seem unlikly to have taken place on the same day, but you have given only one date. Because there was only one date, I added "sources agree", but maybe that was wrong to do? maybe "the decisive engagement took place on.."?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lingzhi - Yes, it is Hemesa on the map. I agree, the two battles couldn't have occured on the same day. I only have the date as given by Dio and used in relation to the battle at Antioch. The battle at Emesa mentioned by Herodian has forever remained undated. I think your proposed change is better. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Downey especially famous or influential?? If not, perhaps it would be best to consign the two-battle scenario to the depths of a footnote.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think so yes, he's been called an expert on ancient Byzantium (the successor to the Roman Empire). You can read all about him here and the specific work we're talking about has been cited in 536 works according to Google Books. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, stop me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Elagabalus briefly emperor? If so, then this article disagrees with damnatio memoriae, which states that only three emperors (none of whose names begin with the letter "E") were ever subjected to the Eraser of Hell. Could you please do Wikipedia a favor and check the sources of both articles, fixing the one that is wrong? Or if both are properly sourced and the sources genuinely disagree, then more sources need to be found. Unless I am wrong. Which is frequently the case.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can assure that the damnatio memoriae article is wrong. Our FA class article Elagabalus mentions the damnatio memoriae as well. On top of this Macrinus and his son were also subject to DM. That makes six that including the supposed three. I didnt see a citatio in the DM article. I am on my phone and will double check later tonight. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good Granny!! This site seems to list over 30 examples. I deleted the "three emperors" sentence from our article. Apparently that article blows goat chunks. Someone (not me, I'm busy) should heed {{sofixit}}.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I'm kinda busy in real life. Please consider me "Neutral" and let others decide. I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries at all, thanks for the reply. @Nikkimaria: would you mind doing an image review? I think that is all that is left for this one. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Nikki. I will list this review for possible closure at WT:MHCOORD. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lingzhi thank you for your efforts. I'm not sure that I can improve the prose further but I'll take a look today anyway. Thanks for listing the review for closure AR. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2017 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Jastrebarsko concentration camp[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Jastrebarsko concentration camp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Jastrebarsko concentration camp was one of several children's concentration camps established by the Croatian fascist Ustase regime for Serb children in the Axis puppet Independent State of Croatia during World War II. At least 450 children died at the camp in its short history. It was partially liberated by the Yugoslav Partisans, which caused it to be closed down, with the children largely farmed out to sympathetic families. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What is the copyright status of the original design in File:Ustaše_symbol.svg? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, Nikki. The symbol was created by the Ustaše soon after it formed in 1929, and was worn as a badge by members from then on. After WWII the surviving movement was divided and no entity claims to be descended from it or would hold any copyright. The symbol is a bit like Nazi symbols in that respect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria do you think this is ok, or does it need to be removed? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That should be fine, but suggest adding that explanation to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: what a hideous aspect of the war. Just a few nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, "Jastrebarsko concentration camp was a concentration camp for Serb children..." I wonder if the redundancy could be reduced... "Jastrebarsko concentration camp housed Serb children..." (or something similar?)
  • "Preparations for the reception of the children was done in haste..." --> "Preparations for the reception of the children were completed hastily..."?
  • "...garrisoned by Italian troops..." (suggest moving the link for "Italian" from here to the earlier mention)
  • " July - 153; August - 216; September - 67; and October - 8" --> the hyphens should probably be dashes here
  • "Lukić states that this figure, and the figure of 468 victims which is engraved on the monument to the victims of the camp in Jastrebarsko, are unreliable" --> "Lukić states that this figure, and the figure of 468 victims which is engraved on the monument to the victims of the camp in Jastrebarsko, is unreliable"?
  • "believed that the figure on the monument is too low..." --> "believed that the figure on the monument was too low"? (tense: believed and was / believes and is)?
Comments from The Bounder

A rather tough subject to read through, but done very well. A few minor comments on the text:

  • The double "with" in "with a total of 3,336 children passing through the camp, with between..." trips up slightly. Perhaps "with a total of 3,336 children passing through the camp; between..." may work.
  • I was slightly confused by how many buildings were involved in the description "The buildings earmarked to accommodate the children were Dvorac Erdödy, a former castle that had been a children's home before the war, the nearby Franciscan monastery, and the former Italian barracks and stables". Does Dvorac Erdödy refer to the castle? If so, dashes or brackets could separate that out of the remainder of the list.
  • "and the manager of the camp estate was a Sister Gaudencija" might read better as "and Sister Gaudencija, the manager of the camp estate".

That's it from me - very minor points which I hope are of help. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, The Bounder. All addressed. These are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. A fine piece of work on a subject I knew nothing about previously. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support:
    • Tool checks all ok - i.e. no dabs, no duplicate links, external links seem ok, citation error tool reports no issues, Earwig tool reports no issues with close paraphrase or copyright violation [64] (no action req'd)
    • "probably by Dr Branko Davila, a doctor..." this seems a little redundant, essentially saying "doctor" twice - potentially reword? (minor nitpick - suggestion only)
    • "The inhumane actions of Pulherija..." - this looks a little close to opinion and might need in text attribution (although I agree of course that the whole episode was inhumane at best) (suggestion only)
    • Otherwise I couldn't see any major issues. Anotherclown (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2016 (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/2017/Promoted&oldid=905260694"