Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2020/Promoted

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[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 Eddie891 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Clive Hulme[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

Clive Hulme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another VC recipient from New Zealand, Clive Hulme served with the 23rd Battalion during the Second World War. It was during the fighting on Crete that he performed the deeds that led to him being awarded the VC. He was wounded while on Crete and their severity saw him eventually repatriated to New Zealand. He was the father of Denny Hulme, Formula One champion in 1967. This article has just nicely gone through the GA process. Thanks to all those who stop by with their feedback. Zawed (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 16:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • was a soldier in the New Zealand Military Forces and a recipient of the Victoria Cross (VC) Unlink Victoria cross since it's already linked before.
  • It is my understanding that it is acceptable to link VC as a post-nom and then again on first full mention. Zawed (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead doesn't introduce mention WWII as introduction of Battle of Crete.
  • Dunedin, New Zealand, to Harold Hulme, a clerk, and his wife Florence née Matthews You mean his father worked for the Church right?
  • I have to admit to being initially puzzled by this as a clerk is an office worker. I have linked clerk for avoidance of doubt. While I would think that some churches are large enough that they may employ a clerk for office work I think possibly you may have initially read this as him being a cleric?
  • I don't know somehow every time I read "clerk" I thin about a cleric even though there's sometimes a difference since Lexico says so.
  • he married Rona Marjorie née Murcott; the couple were to have two children This sentence is odd to me aa little bit too odd. I may not be a native English speaker but this read a little too odd and is even against my feeling. Can someone else confirm this sentence?
  • It is written somewhat passively, which I think is the issue. I have rephrased. Zawed (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The invasion of the Low Countries prompted the diversion of the convoy to England I know the invasion took place in May but did he got conveyed in the same month?
  • I have added some date information here for context. Zawed (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now at Crete's section and will continue tomorrow. Cheers. 20:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks CPA-5, I have responded to the points above, look forward to the next round of comments. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of Crete's section looks more as a hero story than an encyclopaedia; could be wrong of course but that's what my eyes say.
  • I have trimmed it a little but it does recount his exploits and led to his VC award. Zawed (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • his battalion commander, Lieutenant Colonel Leckie Shouldn't this be linked to the New Zealand's Lieutenant Colonel article?
  • There is no NZ article for the rank so have linked to the UK one instead which mentions the rank is used in Commonwealth countries as well. Zawed (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hulme's VC was one of three to be awarded for actions during the Battle of Crete. Does he know the other two? If so then it could be handy to add them.
  • I have rephrased to refer to it being one of two awarded to NZers. Zawed (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Defence Medal, the War Medal 1939-45, the New Zealand War Service Medal --> "the Defence Medal, the War Medal 1939–1945, the New Zealand War Service Medal"
  • much to his displeasure as he was keen to resume his war service.[19] However, three months later he was recalled to active In those 3 months what did he do?
  • No info on that in the sources. Zawed (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Years of service: 1940–43" --> "Years of service: 1940–1942" and
    ed make it "1942–1943" since was discharged for the first time in 1942.
  • Link "discharged" or "discharge".

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review CPA-5, I have responded above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi CPA-5, just a nudge here - are you happy with the responses? Zawed (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merry Christmas to you too. All of my comments are now addressed, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, Zawed, thanks for your work on this article. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest mentioning siblings in the early life section, as a brother is mentioned later
  • Done, although it is a little vague as I don't know for sure if there were any other siblings. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few months later he enlisted in the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force (2NZEF): do we know the exact date he enlisted and where he undertook his basic training?
  • Date of enlistment added along with location were his battalion trained. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • His conduct provided much needed morale for his fellow soldiers --> "His conduct provided a much needed morale boost for his fellow soldiers"?
  • During this action, he was wounded in the arm: left or right?
  • None of my sources say. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suffering a bullet strike through his shoulder --> "suffering a bullet wound to his shoulder"? Also, left or right?
  • I have rephrased though differently to your suggested as "wounded" is used earlier in the sentence. None of my sources indicate which shoulder. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • units and formations sometimes have definite articles and sometimes don't; for instance "headquarters of 5th Infantry Brigade", "himself to 23rd Battalion"}}
  • He served on the home front until September 1943: do we know what unit he served with, or what is role was?
  • I would think given his battle service, some sort of training role but none of my sources say. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was also affected by the Cretan villagers --> I think something is missing here. "affected by remorse", potentially?
  • I have rephrased, although I am a little uncertain about it. How does it read to you? Zawed (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He died at Te Puke on 2 September 1982: do we know what the cause of death was?
  • None of my sources say. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1939-1945 Star, War Medal 1939-45, Greek Commemorative War Medal 1940-1941: endashes?
  • "war is on, war is on - and you do what you have to do": endash?
  • in the Notes, "Denny Hulme - Biography": endash?
  • in the Notes, "For Valor: Sergeant A. C. Hulme Invested with VC" --> "Valour"?
  • in the Notes, "nzherald" --> New Zealand Herald?
  • in the References, is there an OCLC for the Ross work?
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review AustralianRupert, I have responded above. Haven't seen too much of you around here, I hope you and yours are doing OK. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries -- thanks for your efforts. Yes, everyone is well, thank you. This year has been very busy with work, and my motivation has dropped a bit, I'm sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright[edit]

Greetings Zawed! I have a few minor comments. Pendright (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • He received the VC for his actions during the Second World War, at the Battle of Crete in May 1941.
Actually, he received the VC for his actions "at the Battle of Crete" ... -> Consider reversing the above sequence?
  • He was also the father of champion Formula One racing driver Denny Hulme.
  • This secondary detail does not fit well into the narrative here.
  • The word "also" seems unnecessary.

Early life:

  • one of at least two sons of Harold Hulme,
Needs a bit of clarity?
  • Yeah it is a bit clumsy. I have phrased it this way since the sources don't explicit say how many siblings he had. He had at least one brother, as sources mention he was killed at Crete. I'm not sure how else to deal with it. Zawed (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2nd WW:

  • It remained there until early 1941, at which time it embarked for Egypt. It was only in Egypt for a brief time before it was moved to Greece,
In the above, "it" is used four times, in which it refers to it twice?
  • Have rephrased to remove a couple of the "it"s. Zawed (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [The next day], German snipers began infiltrating the New Zealanders' position and opened fire on a conference of senior officers at the headquarters of the 5th Infantry Brigade. Hulme volunteered to deal with them and, with his company commander observing through field glasses, successfully eliminated a party of five snipers while wearing the camouflage smock that he had acquired earlier in the battle. At one stage during this mission, the smock fooled the Germans into thinking he was part of their group. [The next day] he continued his sniping exploits, killing three more Germans and destroying
[The next day] and [The next day] -> Unclear?
  • Have added a date for one of those "next day"s. Zawed (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Later life:

  • He was survived by his wife and two children.[1] His son, Denny Hulme, was active in motorsports, winning several Grand Prix
What about the other offspring?
  • There was only two children. In the early life section I have now specified a son and daughter, and then use the more general "children" in this section. Zawed (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medals:

  • This prompted calls for an apology to the families of those killed by Hulme[13] and caused upset to his daughter, who pointed out
Perhaps I missed it, but this is the frst mention of a daughter that I recall?
  • Now that I have specified there was a son and daughter from marriage, this is now the second mention so has antecedence. Zawed (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finised - Pendright (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pendright Thank you for the review. I have responded to your points above. Apologies for the delay in getting this sorted, it has been a crazy few days at work in the run into Christmas! Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zawed: All good, supporting. Pendright (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

That all looks good to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog! Merry Xmas to you! Zawed (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2020 (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 Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Westerplatte[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Piotrus (talk)

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

Toolbox

A bit longer than my recent A-class battle of Hel, but overall pretty similar; already a GA. Let's see if we can polish it to an A-class :) Thanks for any suggestions! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

All images are free (t · c) buidhe 08:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I see an issue with the first sentence "one of the first battles in Germany's invasion of Poland, marking the start of World War II in Europe". If it was only one of the first battles (rather than... "the first battle"), how could it mark the start of World War II in Europe? (IIRC, the concentration camp prisoners killed for the Gleiwitz incident and Operation Himmler are considered the first fatalities of WWII, according to Nikolaus Wachsmann.) (t · c) buidhe 10:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to rewording this. Certainly, this battle wasn't THE first battle, although some Polish sources make this claim - but yes, it is incorrect, and discussed more in the article itself. But as it was one of the first battles of the invasion that begun the WWII in Europe, I think the sentence is overall clear, uncontroversial and relevant. As for the Gleiwitz incident, it is an interesting issue, but overall majority of the sources do ignore it (as in, WWII is commonly assumed to have started on Sept 1, not August 31, see also our article on WWII). Could add a footnote discussing it, I guess.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think wording along the lines of "considered by Poland to mark the beginning of the war" would be better. This would tie it into the postwar commemoration ceremonies and how it is remembered in Poland especially. (t · c) buidhe 03:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not "by Poland" but "in Polish historiography". But actually you'll note this is discussed in the article, and specifically criticized by a relatively new in-depth study, who pretty much shares your view (as do I). Is undeniably one of the first battles of the war, but the territory of what was "the first battle" is a minefield. The only issue is that this battle is often called "The first battle", we know this is not accurate and controversial, but the fact remains this is a common description, particularly found in older sources that are not in-depth and like generalizations and sound bites that sound "cool" :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think there should be some way to concisely state that it is often called the first battle but the designation is disputed. (t · c) buidhe 09:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments[edit]

  • The lead seems a little short - remember that it should be a summary of the article, and nothing in the background and little in the aftermath and remembrance sections are mentioned
  • "60 hectares (600,000 m2" - shouldn't the metric figure be used first? Also, wouldn't km2 be more appropriate for the size?
  • Include Hitler's first name on the first use (and maybe introduce him as "the German dictator" or similar)
  • Don't use ranks after the individual has been introduced (e.g., Sucharski, not Major Sucharski)
  • Relatedly, Franciszek Dąbrowski is overlinked
  • "the flaming wagons created a perfect field of fire" - I don't understand this. Do you mean the flames backlit the German soldiers?
  • Did any fighting take place here during the Vistula–Oder Offensive in 1945?
  • Is it relevant that contemporary sources misidentified Sucharski? I'd assume no, but figured it might be worth asking. Parsecboy (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus:: reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy and Gog the Mild: Thank you, I missed the above. Fixes and comments:
Lead has been expanded, please let me know if anything else you think is significant and you'd like to see it there.
I don't see a problem with hectares being fist, and I changed m2 to km2.
I reduced the overuse of ranks. And overlinking of the mentioned term and few others.
Backlit sounds good, added clarification.
"Did any fighting take place here during the Vistula–Oder Offensive in 1945?" Yes, I've added something to the aftermath. I'd appreciate advise on whether the Polish term "76 dywizja gwardii" (roughly, the Soviet 76th Guards Division) can refer to the 76th Rifle Division (Soviet Union)?
"Is it relevant that contemporary sources misidentified Sucharski?" I am not entirely sure which part of the current text you refer to when asking this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On hectares, wasn't Poland on the metric system? Generally we favor the unit of measure of the country at the time.
Hectares are metric, 1000 sq meters to be precise.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was a 76th Guards Rifle Division as well, which is probably the correct unit. Parsecboy (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the last point, the relevant line is " Contemporary English-language publications (such as Life and the Pictorial History of the War) misidentified the Polish commander as a Major "Koscianski"". Parsecboy (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a modern Pole, while of course we use metric system, hectares are also often used in Poland, even today, to discuss land acreage. Thanks for the unit ID, will use it. I think the Koscianski item is relevant in case someone uses an old publication and asks about the possible error? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Use title case, even for subtitles. Including translated titles.
    • Missed #35
  • Publication info for books is only the year, not a full date.
    • Missed #8, 21, 22, 35–38
  • Be consistent with date formats, both for publication dates and retrieval or achived dates
  • Be consistent about formatting author's names. Some are last, first; others are first then last.
  • Be consistent about providing publisher locations or not for books.
  • Cannot verify the Polish-language sources, but the English-language ones are high quality RS
  • Checked most of the English sources' ISBNs. All reference the correct edition, except Zaloga's Poland 1939: The Birth of Blitzkrieg is an Osprey book with incorrect publisher info.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: Ref c/e done. Could you take a look and see if I missed anything? I standardized date formats to use 1 January 2017 for publications but did not change the automatic code generated retrieval/archive dates, I hope this is fine. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Date format should be consistent throughout, so the access date format needs to match the rest of the article.
Some of the Polish titles need to be translated.
Is there any particular reason why you retained the all caps in #52?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I translated all of them? Also, the title is half caps, so I just retained the half caps in translation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See #6, 10, 32, 44
MOS:CONFORMTITLE says that you should put the translated title should conform to the usage in the rest of the title, so title case.
According to MOS:CAPTITLE all translated titles should be in title case.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66 and Piotrus: - I have to disagree respectfully with you on one of the English-language sources. IMDB is cited at one point, and it's largely user-generated and is listed as generally unreliable at WP:RSP. Hog Farm Bacon 17:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: IMDb is used just as a ref to confirm that the movie exists, nothing more. I think for such use IMDb is sufficient.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, Er, no. It is a user-generated source and never reliable as a citation. If the film is notable and WP:DUE for inclusion, you should be able to find a review of it or some news item relating to it. (t · c) buidhe 09:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe Shrug. Sure, no problem, better ref added. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{od}:}@Piotrus: It seems that a few of my remaining comments have gotten lost amongst the other comments and have yet to be addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: Would you mind copying any unadressed issues below here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now it does.
  • #45 needs an ISBN, not whateverthehell it's got now.
  • Done.
  • What is #42? It appears to be a book and if so, it also needs an ISBN
  • It looks indeed like a book; added an ISBN.
  • Keep only the year of publication for books like 36, 38, 39, etc.
  • Done.
  • Be consistent about the format of your access dates. Forex 35 and 42 use different formats. I told you that this was a problem back in September and am opposing now until everything gets cleaned up. I've not enumerated every example, but I've told you the problems that you need to fix, most for the second time.
  • Hey Piotrus around 10 November 2011 the access dates were DD/MM/YYYY which we should accept and not change them. We should reverse these dates. Also I've added some ISBNs I hope they're the right ones.

Support Oppose --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much Sturmvogel 66 I've changed everything except your last comment (I first want to discuss that with the nominator). Anything else? Since WP:CITEHOW doesn't say anything about access dates in books I assume they should be deleted? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, thank you for stepping up and doing the work for the nominator. Right, books don't need access dates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah it's fine, sometimes we have to help each other out. BTW Sturm I've been cleaning a little bit up and have addressed your last comment. Do you believe it's now ready? Let me know if I screwed something up or forgot a spot. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your quick response. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for the help. Is there still some lingering issue with access dates? AFAIK they are auto-generated by scripts used to add add references (at least when I add them). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more, thanks to CPA-5's hard work. I believe that you can control the format in which your access dates are outputted in. Nobody cares which format you pick, but consistency will be required.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsOpposeSupport by PM[edit]

OK, turns out I have a quite a few comments:

Lead and infobox
  • suggest "Beginning on 1 September 1939, the German Wehrmacht and Danzig police assaulted the WST."
  • suggest "that the Polish garrison might hold out for several hours"
  • suggest "The Polish government is planning to open a dedicated museum on the site in 2026, which will be open to the public."
  • for the infobox caption, suggest "The German battleship Schleswig-Holstein firing her guns on September 5, 1939"
Body
  • suggest "In 1939, Westerplatte was a peninsula in the Bay of Danzig, now the Bay of Gdańsk."
  • "In addition, the Polish and French governments"
  • "According to anotherone source"
  • suggest dispensing with the parentheses, ie "only several small guardhouses" and "and were supported by a network of field fortifications, including trenches, barricades and barbed wire."
  • coup d'etat is in Merriam-Webster, so no need to italicise per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC
  • comma after "Mieczysław Słaby [pl]"
  • the link you need is Armata 75 mm wz.02/26
  • the 81 mm mortar you are looking for is the Polish license-made Brandt Mle 27/31
    • In response to your query on my talk page, I suggest just using [[Brandt Mle 27/31|81 mm mortars]] and dropping the Polish interwiki link. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "centered on the six guardhouses" per above
  • suggest "The plan called for Westerplattethe depot"
  • for marine shock-troop company, link company (military)
  • the description of the atack forces needs work. Suggest "On board was a Marinestosstruppkompanie (marine shock-troop company) of 225 men under Lieutenant Wilhelm Henningsen. <say where the land force was located>, the Germans had an SS Heimwehr Danzig force of 1,500 men under Police General Friedrich-Georg Eberhardt. In overall command was Captain Gustav Kleikamp, aboard Schleswig-Holstein. Initially the marines were ordered to attack on the morning of 26 August 1939, and on that day the battleship moved further upstream. Sucharski put the garrison of the depot on heightened alert. Shortly before the German disembarkation, the orders were rescinded."
  • "to capture Westerplattethe depot"
  • "On the early morning of 1 September 1939, the Schleswig-Holstein" the definite article isn't used in front of ship names
  • link broadside
  • "at the Polish garrisonpositions" do we know where the shells landed?
  • "Eight minutes later Lieutenant Wilhelm Henningsen's marines from the Schleswig-Holstein advanced" but weren't they on the ship? Where/how did they land?
  • "the artillery-breached brick wall" where?
  • where did the Schutzpolizei come from, they are not listed earlier?
  • "Lt. Leon Pająk opened intense howitzer fire", but the gun was a field gun, not a howitzer. Suggest "The field gun, commanded by Pająk, opened intense fire..."
  • "the other side of Westerplatte" what side?
  • "The Germans triedassaulted the depot again"
  • for mines, link Anti-personnel mine
  • "By noon, when the Germans retreated, Henningsen had been gravely wounded."
  • suggest "taking outdestroying the Polish mortars"
  • "Outpost Five" where was that? This raises the need for a better description of the layout of the defences, per some comments below as well
  • "On 4 September, a German torpedo boat, the T196"
  • "The Poles' Wał post" what and where was this?
  • "Now only the Fort position" what position was this?
  • "the T196 and the Schleswig-Holstein"
  • "one fatality"
  • "Danzig SS" is this the Heimwehr? If so, be consistent
  • "and Wehrmacht" but the naval troops were part of the Wehrmacht. Do you mean German Army troops? If so, which ones were they?
  • "toward the land bridge" where?
  • where were the various outposts?
  • "The Schleswig-Holstein took part in the bombardments"
  • "General Eberhardt"
  • suggest "let Sucharski keep his ceremonial szabla (Polish saber) in captivity,[6]:447 but it was confiscated later."
  • "Contemporary English-language publications, such as Life and the Pictorial History of the War, misidentified"
  • "Sucharski surrendered the post to Captain Kleikamp, and the German"
  • "Over 3,000 Germans, including soldiers and support formations such as the Danzig police,..."
  • "sSergeant Kazimierz Rasiński"
  • link radio code
  • "On 19 September Hitler came to visit GdańskDanzig" contemporary names should be used
  • the Aftermath section has too many short paras
  • say that I. C. B. Dear is a historian
  • Luftwaffe is in Merriam-Webster, and does not need to be italicised
  • "notably preventing the Schleswig-Holstein"
  • "beginning on 1 September 1939"
  • the link for "subsequent" is rather Easter-Eggy
  • "Westerplatte is a common venue for remembrance ceremonies relating to World War II, usually held on 1 September."
  • "was attended by Prime Minister Tusk"
  • "was the removal of the Soviet T-34 tank from the cemetery to a museum in another town in 2007."

Phew, that's quite a bit. Mostly just prose and MOS stuff, but a proper description of the defences and the directions from which the Germans attacked etc are definitely needed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: It took a while but I think I addressed most of the issues you raise. All the Polish positions mentioned are labelled in the recently labelled map: File:Westerplatte en.PNG. It uses the word guardhouse instead of the outposts so I changed the language used in the article to match what is on the map. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few of my comments have not been addressed, even MOS ones. Could you go through again, and if you disagree with my comments, explain why? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused, I think I addressed 90% or so of the above. Some were incorrect, for example radio code does not exist so I had to link to code (military). Which are MoS-ones that were not addressed? In some cases you noted 'suggest' etc. and I did address some suggestions and felt some others were not necessary. For questions about locations, a map has been added and terminology standardized. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than quibble over individual comments, I have just gone through and changed the things I think need changing. However, the text needs to explain where attacks were made and where from, you cannot just rely on the map for that information. For example, is the red arrow across the port pool/Dead Vistula the abortive Danzig Police assault? Were all the marine infantry attacks conducted from the eastern side against the brick wall border outposts? The map doesn't show the Wał outpost. Could you add the railway lines to the map legend and say that the train attacks were also launched from the eastern end? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I asked the map author to add more information per your suggestions. The problem is that the sources I have tend to be very cryptic about the directions of the attack. I think it is semi-obvious all the attacks came from the east, which is why sources don't geneally talk about the directions (and no, I don't have any source that says they were all from the east, but also no source suggests anything to the contrary). And yes, the arrow on the left is most likely the place of the failed landing, although none of my sources is more precise than to say it was 'on the western side' of the depot. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, what's the source on which the repulsed red arrow's location at the eastern end of the peninsula is based? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked the author of the map, User:Lonio17, on his talk page at Commons a while back (commons:User_talk:Lonio17#File:Westerplatte_maps_1.png), but he has been inactive since. As far as I know, he has a sizable library and uses it for his map making, but he does not usuall cite detailed sources in his maps. Generally we WP:AGF such map-making work. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly have no experience of AGFing of mapwork. Everything, including the detail on maps, needs to be verifiable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've only seen one case where maps have ever been AGF, and those were ACW maps by User:Hlj, who happens to be a highly respected cartographer who specializes in that subject matter. So that's an odd case. Hog Farm Bacon 19:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I agree sourcing the maps is best practice, but... look at commons:User:Lonio17. Is it really beneficial to consider removing hundreds of generally uncontroversial, clearly helpful and generally correct maps? I am not aware of any errors on those maps (there are occasional small issues but Lonio17 has usually fixed them - the thing is, he is in his 70s+ and his health is not the best, so I am not sure what will he do if we ask him to source all of that work better than he does already - note the "The maps are based on Polish military maps from 1917 - 1939 from my own collection." on his userpage...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is ACR, not GAN. I might give it a pass there, but not here, and it certainly wouldn't get past the usual image reviewers at FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the image is clearly helpful to the readers, and nobody identified any errors in it, so what's the problem? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it is not verifiable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But it matches all the other maps I have seen (and that are a google away like [1], [2] or [1.f.jpg]). Since due to the copyright we are not supposed to redraw maps, but can create rough reproductions, I am not sure how to proceed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although two of those maps (I get a 404 error on the third) provide the defensive position locations, none of those maps replicate the attack information, in fact the first one essentially shows attacks coming from every which way. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is because it seems to want to show the artillery or even machien gun shelling. For example, it contains the location of the old lighthouse which had a German machine gun (in the left of the map), so the corresponding arrow seems to be for the machine gun fire, not any landing. Ditto for another arrow in the bottom right, which is from the German mortars (but I haven't seen any soruce discussing the location of German mortars in my sources). PS. For the third map, the file name contains a [1] so it breaks wiki syntax, to access it you need to copypaste http://www.tomek.strony.ug.edu.pl/image/westerplatteuc3[1].f.jpg. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I get that about the first map, but the third map doesn't really help much either. It also has arrows all over the place. The central problem is that we don't have detailed information about the exact location of the secondary attack but the map in the article provides a clear indication of where it was, but doesn't have a basis in a source I have seen. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I finally got a reply from the map creator, he is updating the map (on his common's talk page). Also, I asked him to list the sources used. Hopefully he will do so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that happens, ping me and I will be happy to support. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you understand this is out of my hands. I asked the map author for sources and fixes, but they have been mostly inactive these days. As a reminder, they are OLD... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You could just delete the map, which currently contains unverified information, and I would support. Then re-instate it when the map creator gets it up to speed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but deleting the map, which seems to contain no errors and is overall quite helpful, would lower the quality of the article. I'd rather not get an A-class than make the article less helpful. The class improvement should focus on suggestions to make articles better, not worse. This is a great case of WP:IAR. The map may have minor problems, but makes the article better. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It contains material that is unverified. Switching to oppose until this is addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lonio replied that source has been added: [3]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey PM, can you point us whether or not this issue has been solved? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your quick response. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hog Farm[edit]

I'll try to get to this soon. Hog Farm Bacon 15:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • ". In addition, Polish and French discussed the need for a preventive war against Germany" - This reads funny to me. Maybe either the Polish and French, or probably Polish and French leaders (if that's accurate)
  • Did the League ever find out about the Polish improvements? It sounds like the field fortifications would be in violation of the League of Nations rules, but the trenches and barbed wire would surely be harder to hide
  • Free City of Danzig is overlinked in the background
  • One of these redlinks with an interwiki link I'm not sure about: There is an enwiki article 81 mm mortar. The Polish article is in much better shape, and details the specific Polish model used, which there isn't on enwiki, but the English article is more useful to those who don't speak Polish, which it's safe to say is most of our readers.

Through Prelude. More to come later. Hog Farm Bacon 16:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "aboard the Schleswig-Holstein" - This appears in several places throughout the article. With ship's names, it okay to say "the battleship Foo", but it's always "Foo", not "the Foo"
  • " and Lt. Leon Pająk" - If you're going to abbreviate ranks, introduce the abbreviation after the full form of the first time the rank is mentioned
  • "fatalty" - Check you're spelling
  • "Sucharski surrendered the post to Captain Kleikamp, the Germans stood at attention as the Polish garrison marched out at 11:30. - I feel like this should be a semicolon, not a comma
  • You cite IMDB in the Remembrance section. It is not a reliable source whatsoever.
  • "The Polish 75 mm field gun became one of Germany's first war trophies of World War II, displayed on a column at Flensburg - But earlier, you said it was destroyed. Maybe "disabled" would be a better word for when you say it was knocked out of combat in the battle section.

That's my main points, I think. Hog Farm Bacon 17:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Hog Farm: All issues fixed (by me or others, thank you). re: "Did the League ever find out about the Polish improvements? It sounds like the field fortifications would be in violation of the League of Nations rules, but the trenches and barbed wire would surely be harder to hide" Everything I found about this issue is in the article already, the sources don't seem to say anything else. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Supporting for A-Class, although I'd have more at a FAC, especially in level of detail about defenses/attack direction. Hog Farm Bacon 19:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias[edit]

  • The map says "Location within Poland, 1939 borders", but assuming that Poland is the bit in cream, it is not "within Poland".
  • "..established the Polish Military Transit Depot (Wojskowa Składnica Tranzytowa (WST) on the.." This needs another closing bracket: ")".
  • "Reportedly Kleikamp had been assured by the Danzig Police that "Westerplatte would be taken in 10 minutes."" According to who? Include this information inline.
  • "On the early morning of 1 September 1939, Schleswig-Holstein suddenly fired a broadside at the Polish garrison." Remove "suddenly".
  • "..as due to the battleships proximity.." This should be "battleship's proximity".
  • "..after advancing about 200 m.." Use the {{convert}} template to provide a conversion for this. Also, the article previously provided a measurement in yards (metres), so make sure to be consistent.
  • "However, soon after crossing the artillery-breached brick wall at the border, after advancing about 200 m and engaging the Polish Prom outpost, the Germans ran into an ambush." This might be better written as "However, after crossing the artillery-breached brick wall at the border, advancing about 660 feet (200 m), and engaging the Polish Prom outpost, the Germans ran into an ambush."
  • "..firing 28 rounds, knocking out several machine-gun nests atop warehouses across the harbor canal.." Get rid of this comma and replace it with "and".
  • "..were approximately 50 Germans and eight Poles.." Per MOS:NUMNOTES this needs to be "fifty" and "eight" or "50" and "8".
  • "..Henningsen has been gravely wounded." Change "has" to "had", and "severely" might be better than "gravely".
  • "On the first day's combat, the Polish side had sustained four killed and several wounded.[6]:446 The German marines had lost 16 killed and some 120 wounded." Again per MOS:NUMNOTES match all of these in either digits or words. Merge this single sentence paragraph into the paragraph that comes before it.
  • "..by 60 Junkers Ju 87 Stuka dive bombers dropped.." Is there a way to avoid this WP:SEAOFBLUE?
  • "..26.5 tons.." and "..with a 500 kg bomb.." Can conversions be provided?
  • "..made a surprise attack from the sea side." Can we remove "from the sea side"? I don't think anyone is likely to get confused and think that two ships attacked from land...
  • "The train failed to reach the oil cistern; instead.." I found this a bit confusion, as it was the first mention of an oil cistern that I could see. Maybe rephrase as "The train failed to reach its target, an oil cistern; instead.."
  • Use {{lang}} for foreign-language terms per MOS:LANG (note there are exceptions for a few things, such as proper nouns, or terms that have become common in English).
  • "This had likely taken place following the 2 September air raids." This opinion needs inline attribution: who suggested this?
  • "Still, it did tie up substantial German forces for much longer than anyone had expected, notably preventing.." The language here seems a bit casual, how about "It tied up substantial German forces for much longer than anyone had expected, preventing.."
  • "..Song about the Soldiers of Westerplatte [pl] ("A Song of the Soldiers of Westerplatte").." Why does this appear to be an English translation of an English translation? Am I missing something?
  • "..a Polish Thermopylae." Wouldn't it be better as "..a Polish Battle of Thermopylae".?
  • "..25-meter-tall.." Provide a conversion.
  • Why does the article red link to Monument to the Defenders of the Coast, but the image is captioned with a link to Westerplatte Monument, which says it is "also known as the Monument of the Coast Defenders", and so presumably the same thing?

That's my lot. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Queries[edit]

  • Good day mates,
I have some questions here. Since this one is from July can we have another look where we are going here:
  • Buidhe what is the status in your own section? Are you happy with Piotrus's changes?
    • I neither support nor oppose the article, I haven't looked at it deeply enough to say. (t · c) buidhe 19:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's true but you've made this sentence "Yes, I think there should be some way to concisely state that it is often called the first battle but the designation is disputed." which wasn't answered and I just wanted to know whether or not it was important? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sturmvogel 66 what is the status here does this ARC pass the source review?
  • There's nothing terribly complicated about the remaining things that need to be done, but it's not ready yet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peacemaker67 what's the status in your own section? Are you happy with Piotrus's changes?
  • Harrias what's the status here in your own section? Are you happy with Piotrus's changes?

Hopefully, we can close this as soon as possible. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like Parsecboy was here also involved. PB what's the status there? Are you happy with Piotrus's changes in your own section? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I think so, but I'd like to see Peacemaker sign off as well. Thanks for the ping, CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay Nate PM has decided to support it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2020 (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) 13:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

4th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

4th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another Missouri Confederate unit, although a shorter article this time. The 4th Mo. Infantry only saw action in one serious battle before being consolidated with the 1st Mo. Infantry to form a new unit, so there's not a whole lot to say here. The regiment's flag is preserved in the Museum of the Confederacy. Hog Farm Bacon 00:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • The lead should be expanded a little bit. For instead the "Legacy" section could give us more info in the lead.
    • Done
  • nengaged at the May 9 Battle of Farmington and the September 19 Battle of Iuka Add commas after the dates since the majority of the dates use a comma.
    • I think I've adjusted all of these
  • the state of Missouri was politically divided Divided by whom? By the Governor and?
    • I've taken a crack at explaining this, is it better? The general population as a whole was badly split
  • Brigadier General Benjamin McCulloch; in the ensuing Battle of Wilson's Creek Where? It wouldn't surprise people wouldn't know where this battle was fought. I mean some names of the ACW aren't named after the location the battle took place.
  • In the Battle of Pea Ridge, fought on March 7 and 8, 1862 This is exactly what I mean. We don't know where this took place and after clicking it you wouldn't see the location was named after Pea Rigde.
    • I've specified that Pea Ridge was in northwestern Arkansas. Is that enough? I can get more specific, but the exact location isn't likely to be meaningful to someone not from that specific area.
  • muster performed on May 5 counted 547 men in the regiment No comma after the date.
    • I've added it, although it does feel odd to me. Commas ain't my strong suit
  • On May 9, the 4th Missouri Infantry was near the action at the Battle of Farmington, but did not see combat Because?
    • @CPA-5: - It's gonna be a couple weeks potentially before I can figure this out. I'm a university student, and I left McGhee at home, so I don't have ready access to it. I can't preview the needed page on Google or Amazon, I can't access it through my university, and there's no library close to where I am that carries it. I'll have to wait until I get
      • @CPA-5: - Well, I was able to get ahold of a copy of McGhee for about 5 minutes, and he doesn't explain why. I've been unable to find another source that directly addresses this, either. Hog Farm Bacon 20:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • by Brigadier General Thomas A. Davies' division --> "by Brigadier General Thomas A. Davies's division"
    • Done
  • brigade made another charge against Davies' line Same as above.
    • Done
  • supported by elements of Colonel Elijah Gates' brigade Same as above.
    • Done
  • On October 3, the 4th Missouri and the rest of Green's brigade --> "The following morning, the 4th Missouri and the rest of Green's brigade" since we know the event in the sentence before this was on the 2nd.
    • Actually just removed the timing event, as At 10:00 on October 3, Van Dorn attacked, beginning the Second Battle of Corinth two sentences above should place these events on the 3rd.
  • defended by men of Davies' division extra "s".
    • Done
  • After breaking through Davies' line Same as above.
    • Done
  • ecame colonel of the unit unit and Riley lieutenant Two "unit"s?
    • Removed, a copy editing oversight.
  • The flag of the 4th Missouri Infantry, a Van Dorn battle flag, is displayed at the Museum of the Confederacy When?
    • Still held. Tracked down a source and added
  • Could you maybe give some more explanation about Lieutenant Colonel Waldo P. Johnson in his image? Like a date or so?
    • I've actually removed that image. It's lacking the publishing date, so I'm not sure that I could prove it was PD.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, are you able to venture an opinion on this, or is there more to come? Cheers
CPA-5 - Anything further on this? Hog Farm Bacon 05:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hog Farm Could you please split the lead into two paragraphs, there's also a DD/MM/YYYY in the infobox, the link of American Civil War Museum is broken and I see some ISBNs use 10 and others use 13-degit numbers maybe standerdise them? The rest looks good enough. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CPA-5 - Thanks! I've used an ISBN converter online to get the 10s to 13s, so hopefully that thing is right. I've swapped everything over to MM/DD/YYYY, split the lead into two paragraphs where I thought it was most logical, and I've gotten an archive link from the Wayback Machine for the broken web link. Hog Farm Bacon 03:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review + source review—pass[edit]

  • File:Iuka-Corinth Campaign2.png should have verifiable source for the information depicted
    • The creator of the map, Hlj, is Hal Jespersen, who is a professional cartographer whose works have been published in several RS about the war. See [4], [5], [6]. I think given that Jespersen has some pretty decent credentials, it ought to be okay. However, if its not, then I'll just have to remove the map entirely. All of the ones on Commons for Second Corinth are Jespersen maps, which all have the same lack of a specific source; I don't personally have the skill to produce a map, either. Hog Farm Bacon 02:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that it's accurate, but isn't there some (other) source you could list that discusses the troop movements depicted on the map, not necessarily enough detail to duplicate it but gives the general idea? It's better to document these things if possible. (t · c) buidhe 04:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Buidhe - I can cite the Cozzens book cited in the article, which discusses those troop movements. However, it would take me a rather long time to sort out which of the 300-odd pages are the exact ones I need. Would giving the whole book be acceptable, or do I need to basically re-read it? Hog Farm Bacon 15:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's fine by me. (t · c) buidhe 21:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, images are OK (t · c) buidhe 01:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Buidhe. There is an image of the, flat, actual flag of the unit here. IMO it would be better than the current "in the style of" flag image. Do you know if there is precedent as to whether flags laid flat count as 2D? If there isn't, do you have an opinion? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the flag itself is probably fine, but the tassels seem to have a 3-D element. (t · c) buidhe 21:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review—pass sources seem to meet minimum standard for RS. The one web source was checked and verifies the information cited. (t · c) buidhe 01:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • "the regiment participated in three charges against exterior Union lines". Do we really need "exterior" in the lead?
    • Nope, removed
  • "attacking the inner Union lines." Likewise "inner". I think that you need to give more detail or a little less.
    • Replaced with "new", so it doesn't sound like the same ground was fought over on both days.
  • "After being exchanged, the men rejoined the Confederate Army and served in ..." Yes, but what happened to the unit? (And in the main article.)
    • Added in both spots
  • Flag image: is no image of the unit's actual flag available, if it is displayed in a museum?
    • I could get one off the internet, there's an unwatermarked one at [7], [8] is better, but it's watermarked. Would it be free to use, though? I'm not great with licensing
  • "Two previously-existing battalions". Optional: → 'Two already-existing battalions'.
    • I personally prefer the existing phrasing, because it fits better with my writing style, but I would be willing to change it
That's OK. If I label something as optional it is a suggestion only.
  • "A muster performed on May 5" Maybe "performed" → 'carried out'?
    • Done
  • Link muster.
    • Done
  • "At this time, Price was in command of the Army of the West, which he had stationed at Iuka, Mississippi; Van Dorn had troops further to the south. At the time" A bit of variation in the start of one, or both, of these sentences?
    • Done
  • "as a result of losses in both units." → 'due to losses in both units'.
    • Done
  • "is held by the Museum of the Confederacy". Maybe add 'in Richmond'?
    • Done

Nice. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Gog the Mild - I've replied to all above, although the flag response is a licensing query. Thanks for reviewing this, these Missouri units are all so similar they must be a pain to review more than one of. Hog Farm Bacon 16:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to support this, and query the status of images of flags. Good work. Again. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Just grabbing a pew as third reviewer. Will start shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox
  • semi-colon rather than comma after "1st and 4th Missouri Infantry (Consolidated)"
    • Done
Body
  • main template for Missouri in the ACW at the top of Background and organization
    • Done
  • comma after "March 7 and 8, 1862"
    • Added
  • "Eventually, many of the men of the MSG would joined Confederate Army units"
    • Done
  • main template for Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War at the top of the Service history section
    • I'm not convinced this would be useful. The unit never served west of the Mississippi River, so it was never in the Trans-Mississippi proper. If we had Iuka-Corinth campaign, that would be a good main template link, but there's no overall article about that campaign.
  • comma after "Corinth, Mississippi"
    • Added. I'm a bad copy editor, especially of my own work
  • "1st and 4th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Consolidated)" this also applies to the lead
    • Fixed. A relic from when I didn't know naming conventions.
  • "from the 4th Missouri Infantry"
    • Done

That is all I have. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:54, 15 December 2020 (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) 09:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Trapani[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

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

Toolbox

The pendant to the recently promoted Battle of Saseno, Trapani was a clear example of Venetian naval superiority over the Genoese during the mid-13th century. The article passed GA in October 2018, but has been expanded with more material recently, and I feel it is now ready for A-class. Any comments for further improvement are, of course, welcome. Constantine ✍ 15:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

All images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 04:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

Sources meet minimum standards for reliability. No source checks done (t · c) buidhe 19:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

I'll take a look at this one later. Hog Farm Bacon 16:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • To me, the lead seems a little short. Any way this could be beefed up a little bit?
    • Done
Background
  • Link Rapprochement
    • Done
  • I'd also say link Constantinople
    • Done
  • "At sea, 1265 saw no major combat at sea," - Nix the first "At sea"
    • Done
Battle
  • "Finally, in early June Borbonino led his fleet out of Bonifacio to confront the Venetians" - Comma after June?
    • Done
  • In the infobox when you say that 27 galleys were captured, since technically it appears that 3 of them were burned immediately after capture, wouldn't "24 galleys captured, 3 galleys destroyed" be a bit more exact?
    • Done
Aftermath
  • "Borbonino and his officers were able to escape, but on their return to Genoa they were tried and, except for five" - Five out of how many total?
    • The primary source just says, "except for five". I've added some details and tried to clarify what is meant by 'officers', so the total was probably 31 (Borbonino+3 councillors+27 galley captains)
  • Be consistent with da Canal versus Da Canal
    • Done
  • Link Doge
    • Done
  • Venetian strength in the infobox includes two saette, but there is no mention of these ships in the prose
    • Added. There was some confusion since some sources lump the saette with the other galleys.

That's it for the first pass. Hog Farm Bacon 17:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog Farm, thanks for taking the time. I think I've addressed the points you've raised so far. Constantine ✍ 12:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

I looked at this at GAN, so I don't expect to find much.

  • "resort to commerce raiding instead, and avoid fleet battles." Delete "instead". At that point you haven't mentioned anything for it to be instead of.
    • Done.
  • "as they captured the entire Genoese fleet almost intact." "almost intact" contradicts "entire".
    • Rewritten.
  • Optional: mention in the lead the year the war started.
    • Added the date range.
  • Give the year of the start of the war in the first section of "Background".
    • Done.
  • "an experienced sailor who was said to" Said by whom?
    • Not mentioned explicitly; I guess da Canal, but I don't have access to him.
  • "four from Crete, three from Zara, and three galleys and a galleot from Negroponte—while only four galleys were to be equipped in Venice itself" That makes 14 galleys, which doesn't agree with either of the numbers you give earlier in hte paragraph.
    • A galleot is also a galley and counted towards the total, I've clarified this now.
  • "given the actual correlation of forces". Is "correlation" a typo for composition (or compilation or something?)
    • No. "Correlation of forces" is an expression about the comparative strengths of each side. After googling it, it is apparently used in English for a specifically Soviet doctrine (no idea how I came to use it here), so I've changed it.
  • "dispatched to join with Dondulo". Is "with" necessary?
    • Removed.
  • "with his three councillors". You write as if they have been mentioned before. They haven't, so perhaps an introduction?
    • Done.
  • "However, soon Borbonino decided otherwise." Perhaps 'However, shortly afterwards Borbonino decided otherwise.'?
    • Done.
  • "as well as some of the crews who remained behind. 24 of them were towed away". Er ...
    • Indeed.
  • Is any approximation of the total number of men on either side known?
    • Not really. We could probably get an idea by multiplying ships with the number of men 'typically' used to crew them, but that is guesswork. In the sources available, I haven't found anything yet.
  • "Genoa was still more than capable of quickly replenishing its losses". Suggest deleting "more than".
    • Done.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • commerce raiding, and avoid delete the comma
    • Done.
  • overlink for Trapani in the lede and with galleys in the main body
    • Fixed.
  • composed in large part of hired foreigners perhaps "mostly manned by hired foreigners"?
    • Done.
  • link Syria
    • Changed to Levant.
  • Nicely done, but it's nap time. I'll do another read through to see if anything else comes to mind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The aftermath section needs to be severely compressed and mostly limited to the immediate aftermath of the battle, not the entire rest of the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm, to my eyes, the only possibly redundant part is the section about the events of autumn 1266 and spring 1267 (from "Marco Zeno's cautious leadership" on). But I would consider the events of the autumn at least to be 'the immediate aftermath' of the battle, especially as it illustrates how quickly the result of the battle was squandered by the Venetians, and this naturally leads to Dondulo's recall in the next year, where the semi-detailed narrative stops. And since Trapani was the final major battle of the war, I prefer to keep the part about how the war ended in.
    • Hi Sturmvogel 66, can you please have a look at my changes and my comments above? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 09:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The aftermath is at least as long as the battle section, which seems disproportionate, but cutting the last two paragraphs would work for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Constantine just a friendly reminder. Curently Sturm's comments are here unaddressed, could you please address them thank you. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2020 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

French battleship Charles Martel[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

French battleship Charles Martel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

At long last, Sturm and I have returned for another collaboration on a French battleship, thanks in large part to the labor of the naval historians John Jordan and Philippe Caresse, whose recent publications have made possible many of these fun French warship articles we've been doing lately ;) Thanks in advance to those who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

I'll take a look. Hog Farm Bacon 18:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "She spent the years 1902–1914 mostly in reserve, and decommissioned the vessel in early 1914 - Decommissioned is the verb, but there's no clear subject performing the action, as the ship obviously isn't decommissioning itself.
  • The infobox length figure is length overall, but that length figure is in the prose as the perpendicular length
  • The displacement at normal load figure in the prose is given as 11839, but in the infobox, you have 11836
  • The complement figures differs between the infobox and the prose
  • Have the range in the infobox, maybe?

More to come. Ready for the service history part. Hog Farm Bacon 19:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Full commission date varies between the prose and the infobox. (20 Feburary 1897 vs. June 1897)
  • "replace active vessels had to be docked for maintenance - Missing a word in here
  • Is Contre-Amiral Adam's full name known?
    • He's not in my biographical dictionary of French admirals and not in the French wiki either.
      • This is almost certainly Achille Victor Adam (1852–1942). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • You got a source for that? 'Cause I'm not coming up with anything.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The obituary in Ouest-France of 2 February 1942, see the scan here [9], which clearly says that he was the commandant of the 2e Division de ligne of the 2e Escadre du ligne as the second of the three assignments he had after being promoted to contre-amiral on 21 January 1909 and his retirement due to age at the end of 1914. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and her 138.6 mm gun were placed on wheeled " - Singular/plural discrepancy here

That's it from me. Good work. Hog Farm Bacon 02:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to forget about your own nom, but I managed. Thanks for combing through the article to find all these embarrassing nits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This looks good. A few comments:

  • the lead says she was commissioned in June 1897, the infobox and body say February 1897. Copypaste?
  • "She and her half-sisters were disappointments in service" it isn't clear if we are again talking about this Charles Martel or the other one, or its sister Brennus. Suggest "The new Charles Martel and her..."
  • link Capsizing
  • suggest "Many of the problems that plagued the ships in service, and particularly their stability and seakeeping, were a result of the limitation on their displacement."
  • no full load displacement in the infobox?
  • for the engine output, link kW in the conversion
  • link main battery in the lead (and move up to first mention in the body)
  • are main, intermediate and secondary the right ways of describing the armament? I've not seen this before to my knowledge. Shouldn't it be primary, secondary and tertiary?
    • For this period, it's correct, but goes out of fashion after WWI
  • suggest "on the superstructure and in the military masts" unless I'm misunderstanding the nature of masts at this stage, they were on the masts, not in them?
  • the number of 65 mm guns (as built) doesn't match between the infobox and body, unless you are going for the post-sea trial changes?
    • Yes, as I carefully stated that the infobox was "as completed", not "as built"
  • same for 47 mm guns
  • you could put the 37 mm guns in the infobox, but same query as above
  • the top of the belt range in the infobox doesn't match the body
  • what was the armour on the front of the main turrets?
  • you could put the barbettes in the infobox
  • suggest "Charles Martel, together with her half-sisters Carnot, Jauréguiberry, and the older battleships Brennus and Marceau, sank the aviso Pétrel."
  • why did the training torpedo hit cause an uproar?
    • Don't have the book to hand, but I've requested it from ILL, so I'll have to wait to answer your question.
  • comma after "and his wife"
  • Besson is Joseph Pierre Auguste Besson, the source is Le Nouvelliste du Morbihan of 28 january 1938 here.
  • "while the inspector was observing firing exercises"
  • see above re: CA Adam
  • link Hulk (ship type) and barracks ship (I know Sturm doesn't like doing this)
  • author-link Thomas Brassey, 1st Earl Brassey

That's it. Nice job thus far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough review, although I was unable to address one issue that your brought up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie[edit]

  • "she sometimes served as a prison ship." sometimes implies more than once, but based on the article there was only one time
  • "The basic design for the ships was based on the previous battleship Brennus," might be worth clarifying that it was a french battleship?
  • "Five naval architects submitted designs to the competition" what competition?
    • Rephrased
  • "After Aube's retirement," year?
  • "following an accident aboard Jauréguiberry with her welded tubes" I'm a bit confused here as to what's being said
    • Reworded, any better?
  • "and Conte-amiral Germain Roustan" different from Contre-amiral?
    • Oops
  • is it worth adding dates to the postcards and sketches?
    • Add where known
  • Why do military ranks use italics?
    • Terms in foreign languages are italicized by MOS; the exception is that names of organizations are not
  • " which created an uproar in the press," do we know why, or what sort? Given its mention in the lede I expected some more on it
    • Clarified.
  • " hauled down his flag" I think you can be a bit more explicit about what this means
  • "The ship was maintained in a state of en disponibilité armée, a state of reduced readiness with a minimal crew. Charles Martel was in full commission for three months of the year, and in reserve with a reduced crew for the remainder." maybe connect the two (if they are connected) with "When in this state, Charles Martel was in full commission" or something?
  • "her guns were removed for use on the front" I don't see any specific mention of use on the front, though I probably just missed it, in the article.
    • What her specific guns did during the war is unknown
  • Similarly, where is "been surpassed by more modern battleships during a period of rapid developments in naval technology." mentioned in the article?

Really good work as usual, that's it from me. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking this over, see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, happy to support Eddie891 Talk Work 12:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • There's no link for The Times.
    • The template used won't allow it

(talk) 19:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can certainly ask, but The Times has its own template which does not link the name for reasons unknown to me. CPA-5--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see, well if it's unknown maybe one day, if it will be put into FAC maybe someone else there knows the problem. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a volume for Brassey and all the editions of him are in the same OCLC?
    • It's an annual and so only gets one OCLC # for the whole series
  • Caresse's link says "Bloomsbury USA" instead of Oxford: Osprey?
    • Osprey is an imprint of Bloomsbury
  • Google Books says Compton-Hall's source was made in 2003 instead of 2004?
    • Deleted entirely as it didn't reference what it should have referenced.
  • WorldCat gives me a totally different title of Cooper; it gives me "United States Naval Institute proceedings."? Cooper also doesn't have a location?
    • Magazines don't get locations and the journal has had a few subtly different names over its lifetime.
  • Sturmvogel 66 What's the current title and is it possible to find a book code who use "United States Naval Institute proceedings."? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ISSN is the magazine equivalent of an ISBN and stays the same regardless of changes of title.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sturmvogel 66 I've replied to your response and I'm waiting for your counter-reply. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Palmer says "Hazell's Annual" as title while WorldCat says "Hazell's annual cyclopaedia."?

That's anything, just only minor issues except for The Times. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Think that's everything. Thanks for taking the time to review this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This looks as if it can be wrapped up, CPA-5. Happy to pass the source review? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me and it meets the requirements of highly reliable sources. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2020 (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 Eddie891 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Charles Green (Australian soldier)[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Charles Green (Australian soldier) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Green was the youngest Australian Army battalion commander during WWII, and the only commanding officer of a battalion of the post-WWII Royal Australian Regiment to have been killed on active service (in Korea). The foundations of this article were laid by retired Milhist coord AnotherClown some years ago, but I was prompted by the recent 70th anniversary of Green's death to bring it up to GA, which it just passed. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 14:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

Given Green's reputation as a 'soldier's soldier' who is relatively little known today by the general public, it's great to see this at ACR. I have the following comments:

  • The first sentence is a bit over-complex
Split it. The notability is mostly the youngest bn CO thing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Royal Australian Regiment in the second sentence
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's rather a lot of 'He's in the 'Early life' section - I'd suggest mixing this up a bit
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The British and Commonwealth forces blocked the German forces at the Gorge but were quickly overwhelmed by the larger German forces," - this is a bit confusing - did they stop the German advance guard, but then get defeated by the main body?
  • This sentence is also over-long - I'd suggest splitting it
Done, and clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While some of the battalion was able to rejoin the main forces withdrawing south to embark on ships, a significant number of the battalion" - bit repeditive
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did he pass through neutral Turkey? Did the Turkish Government facilitate this in some way?
Good question, added a bit about that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was Green's role in the 2/2nd during the Greek campaign? Was he an infantry company commander?
Another excellent question, but neither Long nor Barter say, the war diary is confused at best, and I don't have access to Purple over Green, which might say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, Pratten (p. 239) provides: "selected in October as one of the original platoon commanders of the 2/2nd Battalion. He served with the 2/2nd in Libya and Greece, and by the end of 1944 he had commanded a company in action, been seconded as an instructor to the First Australian Army Tactical School and the Junior Wing of the LHQ Tactical School and had completed the senior course at the latter". On p. 240, Pratten also provides: "Many in the 2/2nd Battalion lamented Green's loss, where his reputation as a commander of determination, skill and integrity was firmly established". This to me indicates he commanded a company in Greece. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree it looks like that, but potentially he could have commanded a company of the 2/11th between 30 December 1944 and 9 March 1945 when he took over as CO. I'd rather have something more definitive that that to state unequivocally that he commanded a company in Greece. I'll have another look at the war diary for March, the April one mentions some coy comd names, but not all. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There would have to be quite a bit of OR here, as the war diary gives the names of OCs A (Caldwell) , B (King), C (Buckley) and D (Hendry) Coys, so I'm just not seeing a way in which Green commanded a company at the Gorge. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, Pratten's words "by the end of 1944" seem to me to imply that coy command in action couldn't have been with the 2/11th; ergo it could only have been in Greece (particularly when read with the comments on p. 240). Just my interpretation, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ADB statement about his youth as a battalion commander in the notes refers to the Australian Army, while the current wording of the article suggests it was any army. I'm pretty sure that the ADB is correct about Australia, but that there were likely younger battalion commanders in other armies (the Germans in particular often had young COs by 1945, for obvious reasons)
I think this is fixed now, I assume you were talking about the note? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After an airstrike and artillery bombardment, the 2/11th company" - this is a bit clunky - can the company which was detached be named instead? If this isn't in Long, it should be in the battalion war diary on the AWM's website.
B Company, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " With the establishment of the Regular Army, Green returned to full-time military service on 6 January 1949" - do we know what position he held (could Regular Army officers command CMF battalions?)
Good question, but nothing in sources. Unfortunately, his personnel records are not digitised as yet. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest elaborating a little in the 'Korean War' section on 3 RAR's condition at the outbreak of war - as I understand it, it wasn't really ready for combat, and presumably its CO was considered not up to the job? (or at least an unnecessary risk when there were lots of proven battalion commanders back in Australia - replacing him seems unusually ruthless for the post-war army).
Added something on the condition of the battalion, Walsh had been CO for a year, and yes while it seems ruthless, I can see the Army being keen to put their absolute best man in the job. Walsh also faltered when he took over after Green was killed and was relieved by Coad on the side of the road with Ferguson appointed as CO, so maybe they got that right. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can more information be provided on how Green is a source of inspiration for modern soldiers? Is Green used as a case study for enlisted soldiers and/or officers in the training programs, for instance?
  • I note also that the statement that "serving Australian soldiers remain inspired" is cite to a work which is now 24 years old, so I'm not sure about the wording here - I'm pretty sure that it still holds though. Nick-D (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the last two points by rewriting what Barter says and placing it in the time it was written, I did find a recent DRA speech by Angus Campbell in which he references Green a a citizen soldier, but I couldn't find anything about current programs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I've addressed all your points as preferred, Nick-D, but see what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've made a couple of minor tweaks, and am very pleased to support this article's promotion to A-class. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: Nice work with this article, PM. In addition to Nick's comments, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "who were both Australia-born" --> "Australian-born"?
  • suggest splitting the second paragraph in the Middle East section
  • "The fighting around Chongju was the heaviest undertaken by the Australians since entering the war" --> "The fighting around Chongju was the heaviest undertaken by the Australians since they had entered the war"?
These done, I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review: all look reliable to me based on authors or publishers; a couple of minor comments:
    • "Canberra, Australian Capital Territory" (Bartlett) v. "Canberra" (Long)
    • the ISBN for Olwyn Green's book is inconsistently hyphenated
    • the AWM entry for the 2/11th is slightly different from the 2/2nd (Units v units) and in regards to the position of the archive url link
    • ext links all work; there are no dabs (no action required)
    • all information appears to be appropriately referenced (no action required)
All done I reckon, AustralianRupert. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added my support above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G’day guys, thanks for your excellent comments. I have been unexpectedly admitted to hospital to have my gall bladder removed (done successfully today), so there might be a bit of s delay in getting to your comments. Back into it when I can sit at the desk again, which will hopefully only be a few days. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, PM, no worries -- sorry to hear that! Hope you have a speedy recovery. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not good, and I hope that you're soon on the mend. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

I'll take a look at this. Hog Farm Bacon 17:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "he 2/2nd Battalion was deployed to the Middle East in February 1940; however, after accidentally injuring himself, Green missed out on taking part in 6th Division's first combat action, which took place during the North African campaign between December 1940 and January 1941" - is a very long sentence. Can it be split?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and on the 22nd the battalion arrived in Greece to repel the anticipated German invasion. The battalion was deployed north to face the German assault, which began on 6 April" - Which part of Greece?
Macedonia, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While elements of the battalion was able to rejoin the main forces" - I have a gut feeling the was should be a were
Dead right, not sure what I was doing there. Might be the Endone. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know which draft of the 2/11 he returned to Australia with?
It seems from the war diary that he stayed right to the end, which is what you would generally expect of a CO unless he was ordered elsewhere. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pusan is overlinked
unlinked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Evacuated to hospital, he died of his wounds on the following day, aged 30," - Actually, two days later.
Someone has fixed this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Hog Farm Bacon 06:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Hog Farm, all done I reckon. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:44, 11 December 2020 (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 Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Navy of the Independent State of Croatia[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Navy of the Independent State of Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article is about the very small "navy" of the Axis puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia, which operated between April 1941 and the end of WWII. Due to strict limitations imposed by the Italians, who thought of the Adriatic has their own, it initially had only a riverine flotilla, which included a couple of Yugoslav river monitors I have brought to FA. After the Italians threw in the towel in September 1943, the Germans transferred a few largish sea-going ships to them, but there was the ever-present danger of their crews defecting the Partisans, so after most of the larger vessels were sunk, the Germans brought the crews ashore. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
Removed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other images OK for copyright. (t · c) buidhe 11:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Wikilink Muller
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put Naval Records Club 1968 in title case, to match the others
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources all look to be reliable (I gave Muller some extra attention, as there's a good deal of crappy publishing about the Wehrmacht floating around, but he has excellent credentials and has been published by many publishers of high repute, including at least one university press in the States)
Yes, he's a bit of a star in a sometimes pretty ordinary field, his contribution to Germany and the Second World War makes him stand above many others. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Germans disarmed the remaining vessels and sent the crews to Zagreb where they formed a special unit for service on land." - Close paraphrasing here. The only difference between this and the source is the use of remaining vs other
Varied. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Books link for Thomas & Mikulan is a 404 deadlink
Removed, I can't find a preview version. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is Niehorster's credentials? Are they enough to get past WP:SPS for that website? (Struck, Niehorster's good credentials have been pointed out to me elsewhere)
  • Unsure where the date of 2013 for Niehorster is coming from. The page itself has a last updated date of either January 3, 2005 or March 1, 2005 (I'm not sure if DMY or MDY dates are in effect there.
I tend to use the year I last checked it as the year, as many webpages don't have a date last updated on them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The River and River Traffic Command was headquartered in Sisak, at the confluence of the Kupa, Sava, and Odra rivers about 57 km (35 mi) southeast of Zagreb." - Geographic description is not found in the source. I'm personally of the opinion that coordinates are self-proving (like ISBNs), but citations are needed for more complex geographic descriptions like this one.
My view is that per WP:WTC#When a source or citation may not be needed and WP:BLUE, the description of the location of Sisak does not require a citation. Per the former, "Material that someone familiar with a topic (ie Croatian geography), including laypersons, recognizes as true" thus, anyone can look at a publically available map is see that this is the distance between Sisak and Zagreb and that it is located at the confluence of the three rivers. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, striking comment. My response to the recent ACR criticisms was probably to crack down too hard. Hog Farm Bacon 04:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked all of the references I could, and they turned up clean except for the two little niggles above. Hog Farm Bacon 16:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look at this, Hog Farm! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle[edit]

  • The lead establishes the context of the formation of the Croat force following the dismemberment of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia following its invasion by the Axis. None of this is reflected in the body. A paragraph describing how the invasion of Yugoslavia led to the formation of the Croat puppet state would be nice, as well as the whole Axis-vs-Allies thing. If possible, some explanations for why the Germans even allowed an "independent" Croatia with its own armed forces would also be appreciated.
G'day Indy beetle, sorry this has taken so long, but I had lent my copy of Tomasevich to a mate. Have now added some material here, see what else you think needs adding? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The navy was initially formed with assets from the collapsed Royal Yugoslav Navy. What happened to this navy during the 1941 campaign might be of interest, especially if Croat separatists undermined its effectiveness or captured some of its vessels.
There really are no neutral sources that claim this. Yes, there were more Croats and Slovenes than Serbs in the navy, but few members of the Yugoslav forces really wanted to fight, and quickly realised how outmatched they were. I have added some additional detail about what happened during the invasion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her crew came under the influence of the Yugoslav Partisans, and were preparing to mutiny when the Germans intervened. Did this lead to arrests or dismissals?
Sources don't say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The river monitor Bosna struck a mine in the same month Did this resulting in its sinking?
Yes, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Re-organisation" really the best title for the subsection? "Wartime service" or something else seems more fitting.
Well, it was integrated into the Home Guard, but perhaps I could make it "Re-organisation and expansion" to match what happened? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know anything about the funding of this force? Did the Croats provide the money or was it propped up by the Germans?
I believe the NDH had to fund it themselves, but haven't got a source that specifies this for the navy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Germans disarmed the remaining vessels and transferred the crews to Zagreb where they formed a special unit for service on land. Was this unit still technically a part of the RMNDH? Did it become a part of the Croat army, or German army? What happened to it?
Apparently still part of the navy, no sources explain its fate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the commanders section, it says Kontraadmiral Nikola Steinfl served until May 1945. Yet the rest of the article gives the impression that the navy was disbanded in December 1944.
I think this has been clarified now? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might this provide some info which we do not already know?
It is possible, I have recently ordered several books by Freivogel that might add details here and there, and will incorporate them before this goes to FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tomasvich seems to say on page 31 that part of the reason that the Croats would cede to Italian demands for domination over the Adriatic is that the Italians would agree to protect the Croatian coast. This could be made more explicit in this article.

-Indy beetle (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. There were a lot of machinations between the Italians and the Ustase for years before the war, so I don't want to go into too much detail on it, but have added this info. I reckon I might be done addressing your queries, Indy beetle. Let me know what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm satisfied with the changes; supporting promotion. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Placeholder. Could you ping me once Indy Beetle's comments have been substantively addressed. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon it's ready for you, Gog the Mild. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A slightly long opening sentence.
Have changed this up considerably, see what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and comprised two former Royal Yugoslav Navy river monitors (Sava and Bosna, which had been scuttled during the invasion and later recovered), two river gunboats – Ustaša and Bosut, two river minelayers – Zagreb and Zrinski, and six motor boats." 1. Why are the monitors named in parentheses and the minelayers and gunboats not? 2. Your use of en dashes makes it look as if "Ustaša and Bosut, two river minelayers" is being sectioned out.
Terrible punctuation, not sure what I thought I was doing there. Any better now? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "each consisting of one monitor, one gunboat, one minelayer and three motor boats, and the flotilla flagship, the river tugboat Vrbas." Each included the Vrbas?
Another very clunky sentence. Fixed I hope. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: "Cover of Hrvatski krugoval magazine from 17 October 1943 with a member of the Navy." Óptional': "with" → 'featuring'.
  • "imposed on the RMNDH by the Treaty of Rome". Should that be 'the second Treaty of Rome'?
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that's all I have. Nice one. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review and suggestions Gog! All done I reckon. Some doozies there... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it managed to make me feel good about my grammar, and that is difficult! Yeah, much better. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

I claim this seat please ping me when Gog's comments are addressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day CPA-5, you're up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will do it tomorrow (CET). Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link World War II (done), Agreement on Military Matters Pertaining to Coastal Areas (not done, this is a potential subsection of the Treaties of Rome (1941) article, which is a stub), Coast and Maritime Traffic Command (not done, not independently notable), River and River Traffic Command (not done, not independently notable), Central Adriatic Naval Command (not done, not independently notable), South Adriatic Naval Command (not done, not independently notable), Black Sea (done), Russian (done) and Ukrainian (done).
  • confluence of the Kupa, Sava, and Odra rivers about 57 km (35 mi) southeast of Zagreb --> "confluence of the Kupa, Sava, and Odra rivers about 57 kilometres (35 mi) southeast of Zagreb"
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Croatian government hoped that --> "The Croatian Government hoped that"?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also agreed not create any naval units --> "It also agreed not to create any naval units"?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just some minor things nothing much here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for taking a look, CPA-5. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2020 (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 Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Spendius[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

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

Toolbox


A prime member of the awkward squad, 3rd century BC style. Caused trouble on a scale matched by few, was promoted above his ability and came to an appropriately sticky end. I think that what I have scraped from the sources to create this is sufficient for a run at ACR (but probably not for FAC), but feedback on this and on any and all other matters would be gratefully received. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

No issues, images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 23:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass
  • Sources look OK for reliability.
  • Checked Hoyos 2015.
    • Page 205: It supports part of sentence but not "their premier general", although it does say he was more successful than Hamilcar.
I could debate that, but have changed to "their senior general in Africa" based on Hoyos, and on Bagnall's "Hanno the Great, who was responsible for affairs in Africa". That OK?
Fine by me. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(t · c) buidhe 23:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buidhe, comment above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hog Farm[edit]

I looked at this at GAN, so I don't know how much I'll find. Will get to soon. Hog Farm Bacon 01:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find it odd that Mercenary War/Truceless War isn't directly named anywhere in the lead that I can see
  • "Provisions, money and 70,000 reinforcements poured in" - Maybe clarify that a decent chunk of these 70,000 were tied up in garrison duty and not available for field operations?

That's all I can find. Going to go ahead and support now, given that I'm sure these will be either addressed or demonstrated why I'm wrong, and they're minor anyway. Others will likely have more substantial comments, though. Hog Farm Bacon 04:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm. Two good points, both done. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891[edit]

  • I'd like to see a concise first sentence outlining what he's most known for (i.e. "Spendius was an escaped slave who led a rebel army against Carthage, in what is known as the Mercenary War") rather than starting off with "was an escaped Roman slave from Campania who was recruited into the Carthaginian Army during the First Punic War at some point prior to 241 BC."
You are absolutely correct. Done.
  • "he was elected co-general " "of the mutineers"?
It seemed clear from context, but I have changed it to "... he was elected co-general with the African Mathos by his fellow mutineers." That OK?
Good point - done.
  • "a pass or mountain range known as the Saw" is phrased how you want it to be? Reads to me as there is uncertainty whether 'the Saw' is a pass or mountain range
That is exactly how it is supposed to read. Don't blame me, it's what the sources say!
  • "Spendius was a Roman slave from Campania who escaped from his slavery, or was rescued from it;" yet in the lede you definitely name him an escaped slave, maybe call him a 'former slave' there?
Done.
  • ", an escaped Roman slave from Campania who faced death by torture if he were returned to Roman authority." yes, Spendius is the subject of the article here
Bleh! Fixed.
  • several duplinks--
A lot! I must have forgotten to run the tool. Sorry. Fixed.
  • "He did so by a stratagem" Strikes me almost as easter-eggy?
I am scratching my head as why you might think that. They're synonyms. And Stratagem (deception) takes you to Ruse de guerre. I could de-link it, but that seems, to me, less than helpful.
  • "Hamilcar was appointed joint commander of the Carthaginian army, " when?

I think this is a nice article. Some may complain about the lack of biographical detail, but I personally think there's just enough to justify this article. It does feel a little it hasn't been tied together perfectly, just yet, and that's mostly minor things like duplinks, so it's not super concerning. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fair bit of Bio-info on him. He will never get to FAC, but let's see what ACR reviewers think. I put this together towards the end of the WikiCup and so was probably both distracted and a bit burnt out. I had probably also had about enough of the Punic Wars as well, so I am moving on to other areas.
Thanks Eddie891, appreciated. Your comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied that the prose is at A-class level, so support from me. Nice job -- Eddie891 Talk Work 21:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • Optional: Gisco split the army into small detachments --> "Gisco split his army into small detachments"
I prefer it how it is. All part of my attempting to avoid the "great man" approach to history as much as I can.
  • Can live with that.
  • to Sicca Veneria (modern El Kef), 180 km (110 mi) away --> "to Sicca Veneria (modern El Kef), 180 kilometres (110 mi) away" First time we see the unit in the article.
Done.
  • the most outspoken of the 20,000 strong army --> "the most outspoken of the 20,000-strong army" Compound adjective here.
Done.
  • according to the ancient Roman historian Polybius Roman here?
Tweaked.
  • The pay dispute had become a full-scale revolt threatening MOS:EGG here.
It what way. A reader clicks on "full-scale revolt" and finds an article describing the full-scale revolt in question.
Update, I have rephrased to avoid the link.
  • he took with him 100 elephants and a siege train Just elephants? Weren't they war elephants or just regular ones and can you please link it?
Linked. It is implicit. I can say "The army consisted of 10,000 men" and expect a reader to understand that the men are also soldiers; ditto elephants.
  • Link Numidian,
Done.
  • from where they maintained a more distant blockade.[45][37] Re-order the citations.
Done.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, good to see you back. I hope that things are good with you. All of your comments above addressed. While you are here, I wonder if you could have a look to see if I have covered all of your comments in your review of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of the Saw? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently I'm okay; sometimes get bored and then work on Wikipedia and sometimes I'm busy irl but that doesn't mean I'm not active anymore. Anyway, it looks like I've again forget a nomination eh. I will have a look into it in a moment.~Looks like all my comments here are addressed and I'm horrified what kind of things those rebels did back then. Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2020 (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 Eddie891 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of the Saw[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Battle of the Saw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

From the Mercenary War, a footnote to the First Punic War, comes this nasty incident in a war nasty even by the standards of warfare. I have completely rewritten it and would welcome any and all criticisms and suggestions. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 21:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass[edit]

The sources all look acceptable in terms of WP:RS. Checks below:

  • Scullard 2006
    • I'm not sure the text supports "The majority of these foreigners were from North Africa." It says "This motley assembly of Iberians, Celts, Ligurians, Balearic islanders, halfbreed Greeks and, by far the largest number, Libyans, then marched on Tunis and put themselves under the leadership of Matho, a Libyan, and Spendius, a runaway Roman slave." To me that says that a plurality of the mercenaries were Libyans, but not necessarily the majority. Maybe you could rewrite it to follow the source more closely.
I am struggling to see in what way you think Scullard does not support this cite. Is your reading of him that Africans made up the largest single national/ethnic/regional component of the army? OK, I have reread what you have written and it seems that it is. OK, tweaked to reflect that reading of Scullard.
    • " including every Carthaginian citizen of military age" I did not find that on the cited page (it does not contain the word "citizen"), perhaps I'm missing something?
No, I am. Possibly my marbles. That should have been to Miles, p. 211 "... comprising all the remaining citizens of military age." Amended.
    • "At the ensuing Battle of Leptis Parva the rebels were crushed, with few losses to the Carthaginians." The source doesn't mention Leptis Parva and I can't see a mention of a battle where the source explicitly states that Carthaginian losses were light. I do not see a reference to Carthaginian losses in Hoyos either, or the location: "How the battle was fought, and where in Byzacium, is unknown." I would prefer at least one source to be cited with the name of the battle.
Well I was going on Hoyos's footnotes (and Polybius) but while Bagnall specifies near Leptis Magna the more reliable Miles, Scullard and Goldsworthy don't specify, so I have changed the article to also be non-specific.
  • Hoyos 2007
    • I was going to check this but I'm not sure that my version (a pdf) has the same pagination as yours. On page 88 it is the second page of Chapter 9 and the first line is "recorded as suffering shipwreck. After a time, an expedition to Sardinia..." I don't think that this page supports the content cited to it, but maybe it's a pagination issue.

(t · c) buidhe 01:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gog the Mild: If you can confirm that the pagination of the Hoyos source matches (or doesn't) then I could finish the source review. (t · c) buidhe 11:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe, apologies for the delay. Yes, that's the one. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page 137: "Meanwhile, Hanno manoeuvred against Mathos to the north near Hippo". The cited page does not mention either Mathos or Hippo.
I don't know what happened there. I clearly meant to cite Bagnall p. 117 "Hanno, who was now opposing Matho at Hippo".
    • Bit about Naravas switching sides: supported
    • "Both armies are likely to have been composed of similar types and proportions of troops, except that the rebels were weaker in cavalry and lacked elephants." Although Hoyos does say that the rebels probably didn't have elephants, I don't see where the rest of the sentence is supported (t · c) buidhe 08:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken this out and worked much of it into the following paragraph. (The cavalry part is supported on p, 202 "pretty clearly the rebel cavalry was poor and, almost certainly too, it was outnumbered.")

Hi Buidhe and apologies for taking so long to come back to you. Your comments to date are all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • The Battle of the Saw was a military campaign Do sources use "campaign" or "battle" to adress the event?
Excellent point. I have confused myself. Rephrased.
  • the Carthaginian general Hanno No note for Hanno II?
No. It is covered and linked in text now.
  • one of several Carthaginian Hannos known as "the great" Hannos' link is a disambiguation?
Changed.
  • Link Carthaginian Senate, Balearic Islands,
1. There is no link. I could link to senate, but this does not even list Carthage as having had a senate, so I thought this more confusing to a reader than helpful.
  • 70,000 men according to the ancient Roman historian Polybius I thought Polybius was a Greek?
Ethnically, he was. But he was a historian of Rome.
  • Isn't that a little bit misleasding since people could think he was a Roman instead of a Greek?
The word "Roman" removed.
  • towns against Carthaginian retribution.[9][10][11][12] Per WP:CITEKILL More than three citations should be avoided. Four or more citations if needed should be bundled into one citation.
One removed.
  • broken and were thrown into a pit and buried alive.[25][28] Remove the citations here since they are just unnecessary 'cause a couple of sentences later we see the same citations.
I prefer to keep them directly attached to the facts they support. As a prophylactic against future - or during the ACR - insertion of additional text or shuffling of existing.
  • Hmm it's not the only place where there are unnecessary citations the sentences "were thrown into a pit and buried alive.[26][29]" and "the area moved south and joined their comrades in Tunis.[32]". I understand your view even though I don't believe unnecessary citations like links shouldn't be here. But if it is meant as prophylactic then I can slide it away at ARC. At FAC I wouldn't since I believe FAs should be almost near perfect and featured thus even the small issues should be solved and standerdised.
Then we would have a debate at FAC, and i would expect you to furnish policies, guidelines and nGrams. But, "sufficient unto the day ..."
  • maintained a more distant blockade from Tunis.[32][28] Re-order the refs here.
Not an MoS nor an ACR requirement. But done anyway.
  • Both Spain and Gaul provided experienced infantry --> "Both Iberia and Gaul provided experienced infantry"
Done.
  • leaving the 20,000 man balance Hyphen is here needed since this is a compound adjective.
Done.
  • his senior subordinate general Hannibal Note 4 should here apply since this is the introduction of our Hannibal.
Good spot. Done.
  • they could not match Hamilcar's experience.[49][48] Re-order the refs here.
Not an MoS nor an ACR requirement. But done anyway.
  • by being trampled to death by elephants.[30][29] Same as above.
Not an MoS nor an ACR requirement. But done anyway.
  • their horses, their prisoners and then their slaves.[53][29] Same as above.
Not an MoS nor an ACR requirement. But done anyway.
  • Mathos led the rebel army 160 km (100 mi) south --> "Mathos led the rebel army 160 kilometres (100 mi) south"
Done.
  • Why is Zarzas red linked if he had an unknown background?
Lots of notable characters have unknown backgrounds. Look at my other two ACRs for examples - admittedly less extreme that for Zarzas.
  • Hmm why isn't Zarzas then redlinked in the infobox?
Cus I'm not eagle-eyed. Fixed.

Part 2

  • The lead doesn't mention anything about the "aftermath" section?
Added a bit.
  • and its surrounding waters, and also in North Africa North Africa is too common to link.
Delinked.
  • Carthaginian general Hanno, who was one of several Carthaginian Hannos known as "the great" Maybe rephase it into "Carthaginian general Hanno, who was the second of several Carthaginian Hannos known as "the great""?
I see no reason why a reader would be interested in how many other Hanno the Greats there were. (If, obscurely, they were, they could click the link.)
  • of rebels north to besiege the two main cities the word "besiege" is half linked and funny look at?
Tweaked.
  • one under his senior subordinate general Hannibal[note 4], Comma here?
Done.
  • they could not match Hamilcar's experience.[50][51]In keeping Space is here needed after the citations.
Done.
  • Some ISBNs have hyphens and some don't maybe standardise them?
Fixed.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thanks CPA-5, your points all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: I'd say thank you after my regular second review I've found some smaller comments here and I've replied to your responses. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again CPA-5. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CPA-5, I think that your only outstanding comment refers to the comma after the note, but that is fixed. I think. Any chance that you could either relook at it or be more precise as to where it is? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, looks like indeed all of my comments are addressed and if I find something else then it will be addressed in FAC. Anyway, I better give you my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed[edit]

I'm not familiar with the era this article relates so I'm coming at this from the readability/accessibility angle. My comments follows:

Background

  • who was one of several Carthaginian Hannos... Although I appreciate that technically it would be a dupe link, I suggest the link on "Hannos" here go to Hanno the Great rather than the disambig page. That makes more sense to me.
  • And just seen CPA picked up on this too. Zawed (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Half of all agricultural output was taken as war tax,... Not sure if this is referring to Carthage's output or the new territories. If the latter, I suggest "Half of the area's agricultural output was taken as a war tax,..."
Done.

Mutiny

  • The first sentence deals with the army in Sicily, but in the previous section, Hanno is campaigning in Africa. Some context is required here.
Ha! I had put that in, then trimmed it out as too much background. But you are right. Added in Background. And the Punic War and African war bits paragraphed out.
  • the Carthaginian negotiators; the use of "Carthaginian" seems redundant here; suggest "the Senate's negotiators" or similar?
Good idea. Done.
  • eventually an additional 70,000 men according... suggest "eventually an additional 70,000 men joined the anti-Carthaginian movement, according..."
Done.

War

  • raise the siege of Utica at the Battle of Utica. To me this doesn't parse well. I suggest "raise the siege of Utica.", with the link to the battle on "siege of Utica"
You are correct - it's a mess. I have changed to "In early 240 BC Hanno was defeated at the Battle of Utica, while attempting to raise the siege of that city."

I'm up to "Truceless War", more to come tomorrow. Zawed (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Truceless War

  • Mathos to lift the close siege of Carthage lack of antecedence for this siege, first time it is mentioned.
That's me getting far too close. Thank you. Added to very start of "War" section.

Opposing Armies

  • thrusting spears; as well, grammatically, I think that semi-colon should be a comma?
Ah, a proponent of the narrow, grammatical use of the semi colon. Fair enough. Changed.
  • link Balearic Islands
This is about the tenth article in which I have missed that. I seem to have a real blind spot.
  • distant blockade from Tunis.[32][28] re-order refs
Not an MoS nor an ACR requirement. But done anyway.

Manoeuvres

  • Some of first half of the paragraph seems like it would better go in the Opposing Armies section, particularly the discussion of the make up of the Rebel forces, which is otherwise quite weak in that section. Similarly, the strength discussion of the Carthaginian could go in that section.
I see what you mean. I have had a go. See what you think.
  • and so opening up suggest "and so opened up"
Done.
  • could tell or isolate one tell? Is that a typo?
No. wikt:tell, definition nine. Loads of examples, eg [10] from The Times Literary Supplement: "This time, they waited for the invaders to come to them, confident that in a hand-to-hand fight, their weight of numbers would tell."
  • This plan is described by the historian Dexter Hoyos as "extraordinarily risky tactics". tactics plural but plan singular, is that grammatically correct
Wiktionary gives "tactics" as "The employment and ordered arrangement of forces in relation to each other", so apparently it is.
  • if they could keep their army in being it may be too close to the source, but suggest "if they could keep their army intact"
That means something different, but done.
  • they could not match Hamilcar's experience.[49][48] re-order refs
Not an MoS nor an ACR requirement. But done anyway.
  • being trampled to death by elephants.[30][29] ditto here
Not an MoS nor an ACR requirement. But done anyway.

Trap

  • and then their slaves.[54][29] re-order refs
Not an MoS nor an ACR requirement. But done anyway.
  • 10,000 defenders of Carthage under Hanno last we heard of Hanno, he was skirmishing with the rebels after the battle of Utica so some context is needed here
True. I have inserted his recall and Hamilcar's promotion over him into the second paragraph of "Truceless War".

Aftermath

  • Note 4 needs a cite
Why? Do you think that it is "likely to be challenged"? It is not a fact - which would need citing - but an aside to the reader. As such, by it's nature it is uncitable. If you don't like it, I could remove it.
I'm used to seeing everything cited, I guess. Leave it in. Zawed (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have come back to this, my initial pass of the article is complete. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I see CPA picked up order of refs issue as well. Zawed (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zawed, many thanks for that. Some of your points had me smacking my head, some thinking hard, and several both. All of your comments so far are addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz[edit]

Hi Gog, just a few questions...

  • After immense material and - materiel?
Good spot. I assume that it has been drive-by "corrected". Changed.
  • several Carthaginian Hanno's known as - is apostrophe correct?
No, but it seems to have already gone.
  • several years back pay - apostrophe on years?
Seems to be there. Your doing?
  • describes to this as "a gross - is "to" intentional?
Again, this blipped into existance and has now disappeared.
  • The close order Libyan infantry - hyphenate close-order
Again, is done.
  • Hannibal[note 4], and - move comma before note?
Done.
  • their army inact the Carthaginian - intact?
Corrected.
  • experience.[50][51]In keeping - add space before In
Done.
  • sources Koon / Jones - swap alpha
Oops. Done.
It is. Added.

That is all I have, JennyOz (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jenny, all done. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS. This was a DYK on 20 November (23,000 views!). It attracted a number of drive by edits. Some corrected my errors; others introduced good faith errors. And some introduced errors which you picked up but which other editors have since corrected. I had wondered what was going on. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Gog, sorry for delay. Yes there were a number of conflicts happening with review and dyk day. I've just tweaked/retweaked(?) 3 of the above - pls check. Congrats on the visits! Adding my support. JennyOz (talk) 10:02, 27 November 2020 (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 Eddie891 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Haane Manahi[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

Haane Manahi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

In a change from New Zealand VC recipients, I am nominating for A-Class the biography of a New Zealand Māori who was awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal under controversial circumstances for an action in Tunisia, towards the end of the fighting in North Africa during the Second World War. This was one of my earlier GA efforts, dating back to 2012; I have revised and updated it a bit over the past few days. Thanks to all those who stop by to review. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 09:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommensSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • soldier of Te Arawa and Ngāti Raukawa descent who What are those groups, ethnicity, tribes etc? I think it could be handy to explain it here.
  • They are iwi (tribe). Have clarified. Zawed (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in 1913, Manahi worked as a laborer before You mean "labourer"?
  • Yes, NZ English should apply here. Zawed (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He participated in the Battle of Greece and fought in the Battle of Crete during Maybe add a year here?
  • through the Western Desert and Tunisian Campaigns during --> "through the Western Desert and Tunisian campaigns during"
  • Of Te Arawa and Ngāti Raukawa descent on his father's Same as above what are those groups, ethnicity, tribes etc?
  • having spent two months in Egypt, arrived in Greece Maybe add and pipe those links to those back-then countries?
  • where it boarded a transport ship for Crete --> "where it boarded a transport ship for the island Crete"?
  • Optional: On Crete, the Allies dug in for the expected --> "On the island, the Allies dug in for the expected"
  • This isn't addressed.
  • I felt since island had been added in the previous sentence it wasn't necessary to use in this one. Zawed (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh that seems reasonable. Thanks for replying.
  • withdraw to the southwest in the following days Do Kiwis use "southwest" without a hyphen, space or without?
  • I had to look this up - we hyphenate it apparently, so that's what I've done here. Zawed (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • winning the freestyle 46 metres (50 yd) race Since New Zealand didn't use metrics shouldn't imperial units be the primary units?
  • Switched the conversion around. The source did refer to yards anyway. Zawed (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In late May 1942 Rommel and the Afrika Korps Rommel who, the Desert Fox?
  • Clarified. I had the formation slightly wrong, updated it. Zawed (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "prisoners of war", "Allies", "platoon', "battalion", "5th Infantry Brigade", "Axis" and "New Zealand Government".
  • Done, except for 5th Infantry Brigade, that was already linked.
  • held by soldiers of the Italian Trieste Division's I/66° Battalion Pipe Italian to the Kingdom of Italy.
  • Takrouna was a hill, 300 metres (330 yd) high Same as above. No imperial units first?
  • Isn't it "counter-attack" instead without hyphen?
  • I see a lot of "howevers" maybe reduce them?
  • The "The Preliminary Report on the Haane Manahi Victoria Cross Claim" source goes to the recently-passed New Zealand's referendum page?
  • That's bizarre. I reviewed it just before nominating it for A-Class and it was correct then. I have found a replacement url. Zawed (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Takrouna" section is gigantic if you compare it with the other sections may be split it?
  • I prefer to keep it as it as it is since it covers one single action. Zawed (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also see the "References" section does use both 10/13 ISBNs maybe standardise them?

That's anything from me. I'm happy to review and see a native Maori WWII soldier. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I have responded as above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CPA-5, just a ping in case you haven't seen this. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only one comment isn't addressed the rest looks good. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't find anything else thus there's no reason to give you my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • "local schools in the area". Perhaps a touch of redundancy?
  • Yes, agreed, done away with the redundancy. Zawed (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Manahi was one of the first men to enlist in November 1939". This reads as if he were one of hte first too enlist in November, which I assume is not what you mean.
  • "Manahi returned to the Māori Battalion". Is it known when?
  • Have clarified this a little. I caught a cite error at the same time, so have sorted this as well. Zawed (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back in 2012 when I first expanded this article, I thought it had to be. Have done away with italics for operation codenames. Zawed (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a German tank which had been stuck in B Company's trenches". Perhaps 'which had become stuck'?
  • "Encircled by the Germans, the division was forced to breakout on 26 June". Could the engagement this was part of be mentioned? And perhaps Wikilinked to?
  • "Manahi and his company was involved in a bayonet charge against well dug in Germans that had resisted a previous attack by another battalion." Is the outcome of B Company's charge known?
  • "due to heavy gunfire from the enemy." "gunfire" covers a range of things. If there is more detail, could it be given? Eg 'artillery fire', 'machinegun fire' or whatever.
  • "to take his platoon of 12 men". 13 men seems very few for a platoon. Is there a story worth summarising as to the background to this?
  • It is not explicitly stated but it was probably as a result of casualties earlier in the fighting at Takrouna. I've changed the wording to party though. Zawed (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A further platoon arrived to further consolidate his position." "further ... further". Suggest replacing the first with 'additional'.
  • "Manahi, as one of the original members of the Māori Battalion" Is it known how many of the original members of the battalion were still serving with it at this point?
  • "He was not to return to the war for it was later decided that the Māori soldiers on furlough would be exempt from active duty." 1. I am not sure that "later" adds anything, it seems implicit to me. 2. Perhaps 'further active duty'?

A splendidly written article. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gog the Mild, thanks for taking a gander at this one. I have responded as above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

I'll take a look at this over the next couple days. Hog Farm Bacon 05:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Manahi worked as a labourer before he volunteered for service in the newly raised Māori Battalion of the New Zealand Military Forces following the outbreak of the Second World War" - Worth providing an exact date in this sentence?
  • Rephrased to put the month he volunteered. Zawed (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Early life section has a lot of sentences starting with he or his. Can this be varied a bit?
  • I've rearranged this somewhat to eliminate two of the usages of concern. Zawed (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems a little odd that Battle of Crete is never linked nor mentioned by name in the relevant section.
  • Have rephrased and linked. Zawed (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was eventually evacuated from Crete on 31 May" - to where?
  • Maybe gloss where exactly Baggush Box was?
  • Have provided some context wrt to El Alamein. Zawed (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In late August, no attack had been launched" - Would "in" or "by" be better here?
  • "against well dug in Germans" - Not 100% for sure about this, but should dug in be hyphenated, since its an adjective?
  • From my Google research, yes, it seems appropriate to be hyphenated. Zawed (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Takrouna is never linked in the body
  • Do we know when Manahi was promoted to lange sergeant?
  • Was at the time of the Takrouna action, I have added mention of his "fresh" promotion. Zawed (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lieutenant General Freyberg - Add his first name, as well
  • "Despite the support of four generals, his VC nomination was downgraded to an award of a Distinguished Conduct Medal (DCM)" - Body seems to list five: Kippenberger, Freyburg, Wilson, Montgomery, and Alexander
  • Kippenberger was a brigadier so it depends whether one considers this to be a general officer rank or not. I've gone with not here since the word general doesn't appear in the rank and I think it would be confusing for readers not overly familiar with the nuances. Zawed (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy article, that's it from me, I think. Hog Farm Bacon 05:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, thanks for taking the time to review this article, it is appreciated. I have made various edits and comments in response to your points above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2020 (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) 07:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

SMS Undine[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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

Toolbox

Sturmvogel has his ill-fated French battleships, but I have my ill-fated German cruisers ;) This one struck a Russian mine in late 1915 during World War I, which, coupled with the loss of SMS Prinz Adalbert (1901), prompted the Germans to stop fleet operations for the rest of the year. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

Will get to this later. Hog Farm Bacon 15:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "she was armed with a battery of ten 10.5 cm (4.1 in) guns and a top speed of 21.5 knots (39.8 km/h; 24.7 mph)" - Reads a little clunky, the phrasing could almost be read to indicate that the speed clause is part of the "armed with ..." clause
    • Does inserting a "had" fix it?
  • "Undine exploded and sank, but casualties were relatively light, with fourteen or twenty-five killed in the sinking." - This could use the overall normal strength to compare the total losses to, as relatively light is subjective.
    • Added
  • Add the range to the infobox
    • Done
  • "and the deck were protected by 50 mm (2 in) thick gun shields" - Something seems odd here. First, deck would be "was", not "were", and the deck is guarded completely by gun shields?
  • The two screw propellers in the infobox aren't cited/mentioned anywhere
    • Added
  • The horsepower number in the infobox is different from the one in the
    • Fixed
  • "After completing her testing on 23 March, she was transferred to Wilhelmshaven and decommissioned there on 30 March. After her commissioning, Undine was assigned to the training squadron on 10 January 1905 " - So was the second comissioning on 10 January 1905? It's not clear where the transition from decomissioned on 30 March to being recommissioned by the next January occurs.
    • Clarified
  • "thereafter patrolling the line Trelleborg–Sassnitz." - This reads a little awkward. Is there a better way to phrase this?
    • Reworded
  • "Hildebrand, Röhr, & Steinmetz Vol. 8, " - Is there an ISBN for this source?
    • Not that I've been able to track down - the books themselves don't have an ISBN printed in them, and Worldcat oddly doesn't have an entry for the 8th volume
  • Does Naval Notes Germany have an OCLC?
    • Added
  • "Naval Notes—Germany" - Is the extra long dash intentional? On my system, it looks longer than the endash –
    • Switched to ndash
  • " and during one of these exercises in November 1904, she accidentally rammed and sank the torpedo boat SMS S126." - The rest of the article states that it was in 1905, not 1904
    • Good catch

That's all I can find. Good work. Hog Farm Bacon 18:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm. Parsecboy (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • SMS Undine was the last member of the ten-ship Add a note which states what SMS means.
    • Done
  • were built for the German Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy) Pipe Germany to the German Empire.
    • Done
  • and had a top speed of 21.5 knots (39.8 km/h; 24.7 mph) Link knots here.
    • Done
  • After the outbreak of World War in August 1914 --> "After the outbreak of World War I in August 1914"
    • Good catch
  • and the aviso Hela for the German Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy) Pipe German to the German Empire.
    • Done
  • all of the light cruisers built by the German fleet Unlink German here.
    • Done
  • Is there a link for the Construction Department?
    • No - the German naval organization isn't very thoroughly developed here. At some point, I'll get around to writing articles on the German counterparts to BuShips, BuOrd, etc., but that probably won't be for a while
  • the conning tower and increasing the beam From how many metres to 12.4 m?
    • Clarified
  • Undine was 105 meters (344 ft 6 in) long overall and had a beam of 12.4 m (40 ft 8 in) and a draft of 4.81 m (15 ft 9 in) forward Maybe use a comma instead of the first "and"?
    • I can put a comma there, but we still need the "and"
  • They were supplied with 1,500 rounds of ammunition, for 150 shells per gun Per minute right?
    • No, it's not the rate of fire, just the allowance per gun
  • 11 December 1902, and during the ceremony, Prince Otto zu Salm-Horstmar Prince of which country in the German Empire?
    • He wasn't one; the Salm-Horstmar line originated with Salm-Horstmar, but that was a Napoleonic creation, and it was absorbed by Prussia in 1813
  • on the night of 17 November, she accidentally The night of 16/17 or 17/18?
    • I don't know, neither of the sources say specifically, and none of the other contemporary journals I've seen reference to the incident say either. Based on some of the phrasing I've seen, I'd assume 17/18, but I can't say for sure. Parsecboy (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the work was performed at the Kaiserliche Werft (Imperial Shipyard) in Wilhelmshaven Link Wilhelmshaven.
    • It's linked earlier
  • She initially patrolled the line between Dornbusch and Møn What are these? Islands, towns, cities, ports or villages?
    • Dornbusch is an area on the island of Hiddensee
  • at Undine at a range of 1,000 meters (3,300 ft), both of which hit. --> "at Undine at a range of 1,000 m (3,300 ft), both of which hit."
    • Done
  • Link "Normal".
    • Done
  • Undine was initially used as a artillery Wrong article.
    • Good catch

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CPA-5, are you able to venture an opinion on this, or is there more to come? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah great, opinion no, but to me, I couldn't find anything else so I think it's ready to go. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harrias[edit]

  • "During this period, from 10 January to September.." Given you've already given the specific date, I'd made this less specific, and remove "10".
  • "..according to Erich Gröner, fourteen men were killed, but Hans Hildebrand, Albert Röhr, and Hans-Otto Steinmetz.." I assume these are all historians? Could that be made clear in the article?

That's it from me, nice article: a couple of minor tweaks needed, but nothing that stop me from supporting. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Sources all appear to be reliable. No formatting issues detected (Hildebrand vol. 8 apparently has no ISBN, see above). Spot checks not conducted, as I don't have any of these books, but I'm familiar with this editor's work, and I've had no sourcing issues in the past. Hog Farm Bacon 06:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

All images are PD and the licensing details look fine. Hog Farm Bacon 06:02, 26 November 2020 (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 Harrias (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Marais des Cygnes[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Battle of Marais des Cygnes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

On October 25, 1864, Sterling Price's Confederate Army of Missouri was reeling in defeat after being defeated at the Battle of Westport two days earlier. Price fought three battles on October 25, and managed to lose all of them. Marais des Cygnes was the first of these defeats. By the end of the day, Price's army had been reduced to essentially an armed mob after further defeats at Mine Creek and Marmiton River. Today the site of Marais des Cygnes is a wildlife refuge, only interpreted by a few signs at a rest stop and forgotten by most. Hog Farm Bacon 02:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Both images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 12:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

Sources seem to meet minimum standard of reliability, as far as I can tell. No source checks done. (t · c) buidhe 17:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed[edit]

I'm coming at this more from the point of view of readability since I am unfamiliar with the US Civil War. I've made a few minor edits and my substantive comments are as follows:

Context

  • and Confederate activity in the state was largely restricted to guerrilla warfare and raids throughout 1862 and 1863. I think this would work better as a standalone sentence. Perhaps: "For the remainder of the year, and into 1863, Confederate activity in the state was largely restricted to guerrilla warfare and raids."
    • Done
  • in March through May. Maybe it is US phrasing but to me, should this be "in March through to May."?
    • In American English, I've always seen "March through May" or "March to May", but never with both words
  • ...an effective offensive; Smith approved the plan and appointed Price to command the offensive. the word offensive is used twice in this sentence, and early on in the following sentence. Suggest rephrasing to remove one of them.
    • Rephrased the latter one

Background

  • where he learned that Pilot Knob... suggest clarifying that it is a small town. When I first read it I thought it was just an unusual name of a prominent civilian!
    • Done
  • ...while he advanced to St. Louis, so he sent two of his three divisions,... I think you mean St. Louis the city, not the railroad so link? Also suggest mentioning as part of the end of the context section that Price's column was made up of three divisions. Then the "of his three divisions" can be deleted here.
    • Done.
  • link Jefferson City, Boonville
    • Coulda sworn I linked these, but apparently I didn't
  • ...and the Army of Missouri retreated southwards. This is the first mention of the Army of Missouri. Suggest specifying earlier in the article, perhaps at the end of the context section, that Price's column was known/designated as this, and link it there.
    • Done

Prelude

  • Sanborn then moved against Price... the "then" seems unnecessary
    • Removed
  • ...some light skirmishing with Fagan. suggest: "...some light skirmishing with Fagan's forces."
    • Done

Battle

  • ...but despite firing at a 15° angle, overshot the elevations. I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. I think you mean that the Confederates were in an elevated position. If so, I suggest "but despite firing at a 15° angle, overshot the elevated Confederate position." or similar.
    • Clarified
  • ...Marais des Cynges with had bypassed this roadblock,... delete with
    • Actually deleted both "with" and "had", as neither are really needed
  • Confederate Brigadier General John B. Clark Jr. then formed a line in the path of the Union advance. was this an adhoc command for Clark or a specific unit/regiment?
    • A specific briagade. Clarified
  • ...for the Confederate line. "line" mentioned twice in this sentence. Perhaps delete the second mention?
    • Reworded

Aftermath

  • Price's Raid. don't think "Raid" should be capitalised?
    • Looking at our article on it, and the sources I've seen, it's generally capitalized in practice, as part of the name of the campaign

Lead

  • Having now read the article in full, I suggest a couple of changes to the lead:
  • At daylight the next morning,... Suggest: The battle commenced at daylight the next morning..." With the mentions of the Mine Creek and Marmiton's River later on it becomes confusing as to when the Battle of Marais des Cygnes began/ended.
    • Done
  • rather than ...became the day's third action; Price burned his supply train after the last action., which suggests that there could have been more actions after the third, "became the day's third action after which Price burned his supply train."
    • Done

Sources

  • Warner ref: I don't think the (Louisiana Paperback ed.) needs to be part of the title.
    • It's a specific issue (and is in the edition parameter). I think it's necessary, as there's other editions of Warner with different page numbers
  • The National Park Service cite has the year at the very end which seems odd. Have you considered having it as a reference like the Phillips and the Ohio State refs?
    • The issue is I need to cite multiple spread out pages from the PDF, so using cite web would be very clunky too. I've worked on the formatting a bit, though, so that the date isn't at the end.

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • That looks good, I am happy to support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, I have a few minor comments, but like Zawed, I am limited in how in depth I can look, sorry: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the infobox, "Pleasonton's division": is there a unit this could be linked to?
    • There's not. ACW units in the Trans-Mississippi tended to be too ad hoc and temporary to effectively write articles about.
  • suggest splitting both paragraphs in the Battle section to make four paragraphs
    • Done
  • suggest that the Background section is probably better presented as being part of the Prelude as the Context section is actually probably the Background
    • Renamed
  • the following terms appear to be overlinked: John B. Clark; division; supply train
    • Fixed
  • I know it is unlikely, but is there any sort of photo that might be relevant to the article (for instance, maybe a photo of the battle field, or of the key commanders?)
    • I'm unaware of a particularly relevant one of the battlefield. I'm aware of a few of the wildlife refuge, but as they're not necessarily from the battlefield proper, they're not really relevant. Not sure if I've got room for two additional images, and I've had a reviewer tell me that I should keep images balanced between the two sides in battle articles. There's a usable one of Pleasonton on Commons, but the images of Marmaduke and Clark I'm aware of have unknown publishing dates, so I couldn't really prove they were PD. What are your thoughts on this?
      • No worries, if you can't achieve a balanced approach to the commanders' images, it is probably best to avoid them. In that regard, I'd suggest using File:Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge (8250584708).jpg in the infobox (captioning it appropriately). Or it could be used in the aftermath. If you use it in the infobox, you could move the map from the infobox to the Background, which would assist in breaking up the text a little. A pin map showing the location of the battlefield in the United States might also work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @AustralianRupert: - I've added the image to the infobox, and then moved the map down to the prelude. My intention with the infobox caption was to make it clear that the photo may not be of the exact site, hopefully I phrased it well enough. Hog Farm Bacon 03:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest linking skirmish line
    • Done
  • using the broken nature of the ground as cover --> "using the broken ground as cover"?
    • Done
  • The 6th and 8th Missouri State Militia Cavalries attacked --> "The 6th and 8th Missouri State Militia Cavalry Regiments attacked"
    • Done
  • The 2nd Arkansas Cavalry, operating mounted, spearheaded the pursuit --> "The 2nd Arkansas Cavalry, operating in a mounted role, spearheaded the pursuit"?
    • Done
  • from the brigades of Sanborn, Benteen, and Colonel John F. Philips --> " from the brigades under Sanborn, Benteen, and Colonel John F. Philips"?
    • In American English, using "of" here seems to be acceptable. I personally prefer of, but if you feel strongly about this, I can change it
      • No worries, happy to leave as is if it is an Am Eng thing, but to my ear it sounds very awkward. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I think it's normal American English, although I'm very rural, so my AE is pretty nonstandard, so no guarantees, I guess.
  • Price's army was so shattered and demoralized the historian Albert E. Castel described --> "Price's army was so shattered and demoralized that historian Albert E. Castel described"?
  • This acreage represents 19 percent of the 92 percent of the battlefield -- this seems a little awkward (the double percentages). Is there a more simple way of stating this? For instance: "Only 92 percent of the battlefield retains historic integrity; of this, only... is included in ..."?
    • Done
  • While the site of the battle is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places: do we know why?
    • Not directly stated. Since you have to apply for NRHP status, I'm assuming the owner(s) just don't want to. NRHP status severely limits the types of improvements you can do to land, so a lot of times NRHP status isn't sought
  • a survey performed by the American Battlefield Protection Program determined that it is likely eligible for listing: perhaps say when this survey was undertaken
    • Done
  • in the References, "New York, New York" -- probably just "New York"
    • Done
  • ext links all work: [11] (no action required)
  • there are no dab links: [12] (no action required)
  • sorry, when I read the name Marmaduke, all I could think about was the cartoon...;-)
    • @AustralianRupert: - Thanks for taking a look at this. I've replied to all above, although a couple of the replies are essentially queries. Hog Farm Bacon 01:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added my support above. Thanks for your efforts with the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Interesting article. I have a few comments:

Lead
  • suggest "primary theaters of fighting further east"
    • Done
  • for the non-American, there being a Kansas City in Missouri and another one in Kansas is confusing, especially when both Missouri and Kansas are being mentioned in a couple of sentences. I suggest "on October 23 near Kansas City, Missouri."
    • Done. I didn't realize that non-Americans were generally aware of the existence of KCK
  • "by forces under Lieutenant Colonel Frederick W. Benteen"
    • Done. If this is an issue, I'll have to go back and check just about every battle article I've written
      • In general, I think it is poor practice to refer to a force by the name of its commander only, what we really need is an idea of the size of the forces under their command in the first instance. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • give a sense of the size of the opposing forces, then how many Benteen brought to the party
    • Did what I could
  • is it really also known as the Battle of Osage? The Battle of Mine Creek articles say it was also known as the Battle of Osage.
    • Technically yes, although the use of it in sources that I see in secondary sources is generally referring to Mine Creek. I've removed as obscure and confusing, as it's about on the level of some of the soldiers who fought in it calling it the "Battle of Mary Dasun"
  • watch the referring to forces as being the commander only. ie "A rear guard action by Confederate Brigadier General John B. Clark Jr."
    • Corrected
  • say why Price burned his supply train, also in the Aftermath section
    • Done
  • Indian Territory in the American Civil War might be a better link, also in the Aftermath section
    • Done
Body
  • add a main template for Missouri in the American Civil War to the top of the Background section
    • Done
  • say why they were "restricted to the southwestern portion of the state"
    • Done
  • say Lincoln was president
    • Done
  • 1864 United States presidential election
    • Done
  • say something about Reynolds being the new governor
    • Used a method similar to that which I used to resolve this at the Slayback's Regiment FAC
  • "leaving the Missouri State Militia to beas the state's"
    • Done
  • "sent Marmaduke and Fagan's divisions" check the rest of the article for the same tendency
    • Done
  • "Shelby's division operated north of the town"
    • Correcting these as I go along
    • Think I've got all of these, although I may have missed some.
  • I'd like a better idea of force strengths throughout, ie what was the strength of Price's column, and what strength were Ewing's forces, Clark's force sent to Glasgow etc? This is an issue throughout, you need to go through and explain at least what size the forces were, division, brigade, regiment, and whether infantry or cavalry, and even better, also the strength.
    • I'm working on this. Hopefully Collins can provide this detail. I've got a book on Price's raid coming in the mail, but it's not too me yet, so it may be a week or two yet before I can get a formal campaign study in my possession.
      • No rush. Ping me when you've got it and made these additions, and I'll reread. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I've got it Peacemaker67, but it doesn't give any strengths for Marais des Cygnes that I didn't already have from other sources. I've been able to figure out the strength of one of the lighter Union probe, and how many men Clark had in his rear guard line, but the only strength I can find for Benteen is for Mine Creek later that day, which may or may not be comparable, depending on straggling and Marais des Cygnes losses, so I'm kinda stuck at this point for now. Hog Farm Bacon 20:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • briefly explain what General Order No. 11 was
    • Handled with a footnote
  • "and had their morale depressed"→"and their morale suffered"
    • Done
  • "westwards towards Kansas City, Missouri,"
    • Done
  • "The Confederates still had a large supply train with them"
    • Done
  • suggest "rear guard;[25] it was over 2,000-strong.[26]"
    • Done
  • the descriptions of the reasons for poor shooting seems a bit Confederate-friendly, maybe they were just poor shots, tired, etc
    • I assume you're referring to Again, the fire from the Confederate defenders was ineffective, partially due to the terrain, which also hampered the assailants. Is Again, the fire from the Confederate defenders was ineffective. Both sides were hampered by the rough terrain any better?
  • the assailants→the attacking cavalry
    • This was dealt with when I reworked the previous point
  • comma after 2nd Arkansas Cavalry Regiment, unless it was the only one exploiting the breakthrough
    • Added
  • "Confederate Brigadier General John B. Clark Jr."
    • Done. The article's short enough the reader can hopefully remember Clark from his previous mention in a prior section
  • suggest "The action is also known as the Battle of Osage or the Battle of Trading Post." but see my earlier comment about the Battle of Osage
    • Done, although the references to Battle of Osage have been removed
  • author-link Ezra J. Warner (historian)
    • Done

That's it, nice work thus far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm and Peacemaker67: this looks as if all of the comments have been addressed. HF, do you have anything more to come? PM, are you waiting for any further responses? Ta. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild - Well, I'm going to be able to get ahold of copies of Buresh and Stalnaker this afternoon. If I can't Benteen's brigade strength in them, I don't think I'll be able to anytime soon. So that's the update on my end. Hog Farm Bacon 17:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I was just checking that it wasn't a case of "After you Claude." Gog the Mild (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67 - Neither Buresh nor Stalnaker give a strength for Benteen at Marais des Cygnes. If that's a sticking point, I'm willing to withdraw this and renominate if I ever find that number. (Benteen's brigade's strength at Mine Creek later that day is known, so maybe there's a known MDC strength). Hog Farm Bacon 21:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good. I've reread, and the only thing I think needs clarification is whether this was a cavalry/artillery-only affair. I see no mention of infantry (except unrelated to this action), but it isn't made clear when talking about the Union forces, or in the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67 - I think I've gotten this done satisfactorily. It's an interesting position of the source generally don't state directly that it was a cavalry fight, but they refer to all the component units as cavalry, so I've had to introduce the component Union units as cavalry as they appear. Hog Farm Bacon 04:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:54, 15 November 2020 (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 Eddie891 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Portsmouth War Memorial[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

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

Toolbox

I haven't brought a war memorial here for a while. This one's not even Lutyens! I visited Portsmouth in August this year (actually to see another war memorial!) and was impressed with this one; I knew of it in passing but was surprised it had no article at all so when I was looking for a small project, I decided to set that right. Turns out, almost all the source material I needed was already sat on my bookshelf. Sadly, it also turns out that some of the best photos we have available are the ones I took on my phone on a rainy day before I had to run for a train (which was then delayed!). Anyway, here is the result of that project. It's reached the point where I'd appreciate some outside input, so all comments and feedback are warmly welcomed! Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

I'll get to this over the next couple days. Hog Farm Bacon 18:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The City of Portsmouth War Memorial, also referred to as the Guildhall Square War Memorial is a First World War memorial in Guildhall Square in the" - Since "also referred to as the Guildhall Square War Memorial" is an appositive, it should have a comma after Memorial
    • You're absolutely right.
  • "The mayor, John Timpson, launched an appeal with a letter to the local newspaper, the Hampshire Telegraph and Post on 27 December 1918" - Ditto above, I do believe there should be a comma after Post. (Disclosure: I'm a rural American who struggles with copyediting at times, so I may be wrong)
    • And again.
  • "but the quote of just under £20,000 (approximately equivalent to £881,000 in 2016) exceeded the available budget and the architects were instructed to scale back their design" - What was the initial budget?
    • We don't really know. One source says £20k but I think that's confusing the cost estimate. They certainly had a healthy budget but they wanted to leave something for the hospital.
  • "and Walter Gordon was selected by an assessor from the Royal Institute of British Architects" - When
    • Early 1919 (added). Can't find an exact date in the sources.
  • "In the 1970s, Guildhall Square was redeveloped and the war memorial was reduced in size slightly from an oval shape to a round one and some elements were rearranged to fit." - So evidently, this must predate the 1972 listing. Was there any connection between these changes and the listing (which would have prevented such changes in the future)
    • Hard to tell but unlikely. Listing has only been around since the 1950s and buildings (or structures) usually have to be of a certain age. It's more likely that it wasn't listed before because the criteria were narrower. And it's not impossible that the modifications would have been approved, it's just a really convoluted process!
  • If we're being really technical here, the exact date of listed building status is never directly cited; you have to follow through the reference number citation to get to it.
    • You're right, but the short answer is there's a link right below it in the infobox and it's in the list entry, which is cited multiple times.

Good work. Not much to pick on at all. Hog Farm Bacon 21:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hog Farm! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting, excellent work here. Hog Farm Bacon 00:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

Harry's back!!!!

  • Ah, the Vic and the Lewis gun. Both retired before I was born, but the oldies would tell you haw much fun the Vic was to fire. Water cooled and belt fed, it could go all day. We had the Gun, but it just wasn't the same. Didn't know there was a monument to them.
    • Jagger was known for his realistic depictions. If you like these you'll love this enormous howitzer on Hyde Park Corner!
      Oh wow! A 9.2-inch howitzer! They were used by the 2nd Siege Battery AIF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • British Expeditionary Force is a disambig. Although I don't think the Second World War version ever comes to anyone's mind first.
    • Would never have guessed that the WWI version wasn't the obvious primary topic there and I hate dabs with only two entries, but oh well!
  • Spelling errors: "dignataries", "erceted"
    • And that's the advantage of a dispassionate eye! Fixed.
  • I don't know if all readers will realise that the "major naval base" and the "dockyard" are the same thing.
    • How about "naval dockyard"? Just in case Portsmouth's naval connections were a bit too subtle! ;)
  • Consider using the {{inflation}} template to provide a contemporary value eg £20,000 (equivalent to £938,000 in 2019)
    • I have mixed feelings about these. It feels like comparing apples and pears (similar, but not the same). But done anyway.

All looks good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye! I never left in spirit but life is busy and Covid is only making work busier! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, there has only been one case here in the ACT since June (a returning diplomat). Stay Safe! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 21:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed[edit]

This is a nice tidy article. A few observations/suggestions:

  • Shouldn't the title be City of Portsmouth War Memorial rather than Portsmouth War Memorial?
    • I thought about this but I think the current title fits better with WP:CONCISE; also, it wouldn't always have been Portsmouth City War Memorial as Portsmouth was only granted city status in 1926.

Lead

  • ...a committee was established. I suggest "...a committee was established for this purpose."
    • Done.
  • Archways in the wall lead out of Guildhall Square... The previous sentence refers to walls (plural). The images suggest a continuous single war.
    • Indeed. Done.
  • A monument to that conflict was added to site in 2005. I suggest "A monument to that conflict was added to the site in 2005.
    • Done.

Background

  • Suggest linking to British Army when army first mentioned.
    • Done.
  • ...other stations in the empire. I suggest "...other stations in the British Empire."
    • I'm not sure this is necessary, but done.
  • chronologically, I suggest moving the sentence beginning "Immediately prior..." to before the sentence beginning "Around 6,000..."
    • Done.
  • I'm not going to die in a ditch over it, but I feel that the discussion on Jagger feels out of place here as it is out of context as the reader has not been introduced to him (apart from the lead of course). To my mind, it belongs more on his first mention in the next section.
    • I see where you're coming from but it is "background", in that the reader doesn't need it to understand the subject, but it provides useful context, and I'd rather not break up the story of the memorial's inception to tell the reader about the sculptor.

Commissioning

  • ...the Treaty of Versailles, officially ending hostilities,... suggest "...the Treaty of Versailles that officially ended hostilities,"
    • Done.

Design

  • I note that walls are referred to in the plural here (as opposed to the lead, as per my comment above).
    • Good point. Done.
  • ...with other historic buildings in the area, including the guildhall... Shouldn't that be "Guildhall"?
    • Done.

History

  • In the caption for the image in this section, suggest "unveiled in 2005"
    • Done.
  • ...funds raised by the war memorial fund... shouldn't this be the "funds raised by the war memorial committee"? There is no context for the war memorial fund otherwise.
    • Good catch.

References

  • Should the citation list be before the bibliography?
    • This is the way I normally do it. I'm not sure why but I quite like it so I've stuck with it. It comes up from time to time but it's never been a deal breaker.

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: All addressed, I believe. Many thanks! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

  • Bibliography: Q comes before S.
    • I knew that! Leave me alone! ;)
  • "the Royal Navy launched a 101-gun salute off the Portsmouth coast". I cannot find mention of this in cite 1; could you guide me to it?
  • "Several local churches proceeded with their own commemorations and each parish had kept its own roll of honour". Likewise.
  • "a site near the Town Hall (renamed the Guildhall in 1926 when Portsmouth was granted city status)". Again.

Harry, this isn't like you. Am I missing something? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My fault. I'd put the cite in the wrong place. Those details are actually from Quail, not Historic England. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments[edit]
  • "the Royal Navy launched a 101-gun salute off the Portsmouth coast". I believe that a gun salute is fired rather then launched.
    • You're the naval historian. I'll defer to you! ;)
  • "The committee decided erect a memorial". Missing word?
    • Fixed.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This one seems to have shot through the process. I look forward to assailing it more thoroughly at FAC. Meanwhile, the sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2020 (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 Eddie891 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

8th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

8th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Yet another of Missouri Confederate units. For those who are getting rather tired of this subject matter, don't worry, there shall be many more the entries on Template:Missouri Confederate units navbox coming through here. This one has the distinction of 85% of it fatalities coming from disease, rather than combat. Also, all three of its major actions ended rather unpleasantly for the unit. Why does it seem like all of these units had rough combat careers? Hog Farm Bacon 03:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by AustralianRupert: G'day, Hog Farm, hope you are well. Thanks for your efforts so far on this article. I have the following comments/suggestions

    • Thanks for taking this on. I was starting to get the impression that nobody found this one interesting.
  • Context and background seem like similar themes -- is it really necessary to provide this much detail in a unit article? I think it might be best to trim these two sections back a little and maybe consolidate into a single section
  • "and fighting soon became more large-scale" --> "and fighting soon escalated"?
    • Changed
  • in the Sources section, Holmes is out of alphabetical order
    • Organized
  • in the 1864-1865 section, Louisiana is overlinked
    • Fixed
  • "20 of them became casaulties" --> "casualties"
    • Done
  • "slowed the momentum of the Confederate attack, the weight of Confederate numbers" --> "slowed the momentum of the Confederate attack, but the weight of Confederate numbers"?
    • Done
  • if possible, please add an image to the 1864-1865 section
    • Added an image of the battlefield at Jenkins' Ferry
  • "right was forced to retreat.[30] While the retreat" --> suggest changing one instance of "retreat" to "withdraw" to vary the language
    • Reworded
  • "Parsons' and Tappan's division became" --> "divisions" (plural)?
    • Good catch. Fixed
  • "and the retreat became very disorderly" --> suggest rewording to reduce repetitious language, or even just removing this clause
    • Changed wording to reflect a rout, which it was
  • "and two expeditions intend to forage food" --> "and two expeditions intended to forage food"
    • Fixed
  • "As Parsons's division began moving forward to attack" --> "As Parsons's division moved forward to attack"
    • Done
  • "At this point, the Clark and Gause broke" --> remove "the" or add something after "Gause"
    • Added "brigades of" between the and Clark
  • "which poured enfilade fire into the Confederates ranks": missing apostrophe
    • Added.
  • is there anything that can be said about the unit's legacy? Is it perpetuated by any current units, or are there any memorials etc? How are they remembered by current day Missourians?

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

These are just getting better and better, Hog Farm. A few comments from me:

  • "It was then part of a failed attack"
    • Done
  • "Lincoln's candidacy was regionally successful" is awkwardly worded. What do you mean by that?
    • Rephrased to The election was decided largely along regional lines, as much of Lincoln's support was from the northern states, while he received no electoral votes from the Deep South. I hope that's clearer.
  • say the riot was pro-secessionist
    • Went with pro-secession
  • "Lyon pursued the secessionists, althoughand Price" as I don't get the purpose of a subordinating conjunction here
    • I don't really, either. Fixed
  • "envisioned as aa pincer attack"
    • Oops
  • "Price followed up the victory at Wilson's Creek"
    • Done
  • "In early March, Price, McCulloch" as you tell us it was on 7 and 8 March
    • Dropped that phrase and moved the 7 and 8 March part up, as I feel that it's best to have the date at the start of the sentence.
  • "The ten companies were all Missouri-raised" but wasn't it raised in Arkansas? Perhaps "all ten companies were made up of recruits from Missouri"?
    • Went with something similar
  • "John S. Smizer was its' lieutenant colonel, and W. H. L. Frazier, the former commander of Frazier's Missouri Infantry Battalion, was its major." If this is correct?
    • It is. Done.
  • "Mitchell's Missouri Infantry Regiment was movedtransferred to"
    • Used reassigned, because transferred appears in the previous sentence
  • "via steamboat" on the Arkansas River?
    • I can't act on this one right now. I don't have McGhee with me at the moment, Google Books doesn't let me access the needed page, and there's no libraries holding a copy near me that I can find.
  • "states thethat Mitchell's regiment"
    • Done
  • did the unit have a name when it was briefly a regiment after being raised?
    • Not that I've seen. Probably known by the commander's last name, as that was the standard practice, but I don't think I've ever seen anything that specifically outlines that.
  • was Pinnell's diary published before 1999?
    • Not that I can find.
  • "Colonel Simon P. Burns' brigade"
    • Done
  • suggest "This decision was made in part because some of Banks' subordinates had lost confidence in him"
    • Done
  • "With little food remaining and in the knowledge that Banks had retreated"
    • Done
  • just be consistent with the possessive, either Parsons's or Parsons', I don't think there is a "right" answer
    • My preference is Parsons', so I'll go with that.
  • "which wouldwas to align with Clark"
    • Done
  • "advanced nearclose to the Union line with support from Ruffner's..."
    • Done
  • "Clark and Gause hitassaulted the Union line"
    • Done

Otherwise this is in great nick. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source + image reviews[edit]

  • Image review: pass, no issues; all images are freely licensed
  • Source review—pass
    • OUP book is attributed to "Richard Holmes, Charles Singleton, and Dr Spencer Jones" according to OUP website[13] This article has just Holmes.
      • Added. @Buidhe: - Are the adjustments here and to the point below to your liking? Hog Farm Bacon 16:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources seem to meet minimum standard for reliability. I did not find any additional sources by searching.
Comment
  • "While the historian James McGhee states that Mitchell's regiment did not take part in the campaign, instead remaining at Fort Pleasant,[2] other sources[which?] state that the regiment was engaged in a skirmish near Gaines' Landing on the Mississippi on June 28, along with the 9th Missouri Infantry Regiment and the 1st Missouri Field Battery." reads a bit run-on, might benefit from being chopped in half.
  • It would be ideal to specify which sources say this, if possible. (t · c) buidhe 10:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarified, (only one I can really confirm, so bad wording on my part). Also truncated the sentence, as I don't think naming the other units adds anything in particular. Hog Farm Bacon 15:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine for ACR, although for FAC I would expect a bit more investigation of these differing accounts: where do they come from, what is the evidence? (t · c) buidhe 23:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I don't see this one at FAC anytime soon. Aside from a couple of the artillery batteries, most of these Missouri Confederate units have a likely ceiling at A-class or even GA for a few. Hog Farm Bacon 23:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

I have done a little copy editing. Shout if there is anything I have got wrong or that you don't understand.

  • "the 8th Missouri Infantry Regiment was paroled on June 7". A picky point: surely its members were paroled?
    • Done
  • "Jackson decided to mobilize the state militia to a point outside of St. Louis". 1. Delete "of" 2. Do you mean that he moved the (already mobilised) militia? Because if they were mobilised outside St Louis, "to" → 'at'. 3. Consider deleting "to a point".
    • 1. Done 2. Tweaked 3. Done
  • "Fire from the 1st Kansas Battery"> Perhaps specify 'Artillery fire from the 1st Kansas Battery'?
    • Done
  • "were cobbled together". Optional: → 'were amalgamated'.
    • Done, it's more encyclopedic that way
  • "the unit could again be called a regiment." Optional: "called" → 'designated'?
    • I've got designated in the next sentence, so I'll keep it this way to prevent excess duplication
  • "The ten companies were made up with recruits from Missouri". I am unsure what is meant here. 'made up of'? 'brought up to strength with'?
    • Should've been of, not with.
  • "the regiment transitioned to winter quarters." Optional: "transitioned to" → 'went into'.
    • Done
  • No article on the Union capture of Little Rock? Is it worth red linking?
    • Oddly enough, we have a Confederate order of battle for the campaign, as well as a campaignbox, but no article. (For some reason, the campaignbox oddly includes the Siege of Vicksburg as part of the Little Rock campaign]].) Redlinked, but there's enough of a mess there I don't feel like cleaning up that campaign at the moment
  • "Additional Union units reentered the fray" I am not sure about this, if they "reentered" in what way were they "aditional"?
    • Additional in addition to the 58th Illinois Infantry Regiment
  • "While the withdrawal was initially orderly, Parsons' and Tappan's divisions became panicked as night fell, and it became a rout. The Confederates to the left of Parsons and Tappan had failed to make any meaningful progress against Union breastworks, and the battle ended with nightfall." These two sentences seem to be in reverse chronological order.
    • Actually occurring a bit concurrently, does adding a "Meanwhile" to the start of the second sentence help this?
  • "suffered 29 casualties, including seven men killed." you should consistently use either numbers or words.
    • Went with numbers
  • Mention when the war ended.
    • Done
  • Cite 13 should be 'pp.'.
    • Fixed. Good catch.

A cracking little article. Well done. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2020 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Strategic Air Command in the United Kingdom[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Strategic Air Command in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I am not sure what to do with it. Originally this article was mainly about nose art and tail markings. I overhauled the article, but it was ineligible for DYK. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

No copyright or layout issues (t · c) buidhe 00:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

Great topic for an article! I have the following comments:

I came to it from Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest adding a para in the Early Cold War Tensions discussing the huge USAAF infrastructure and bomber force in the UK during World War II, as well as the close relationship between the RAF and USAAF developed during the war.
    checkY Added a new first paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No B-29 operations were conducted from the UK during the war" - not sure if it's worth mentioning, but a single B-29 did visit in 1944 to confirm whether the type could operate from airfields in the UK and as part of an unsuccessful attempt to convince the Japanese that the B-29s would be used against Germany not Japan.
    checkY Added a couple of sentences about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section doesn't seem to discuss the consideration of operating B-29s against Germany and modification of some airfields to accommodate them during the war noted in the lead
    checkY It says "there were three bases in the UK that met these requirements: RAF Lakenheath, RAF Marham and RAF Sculthorpe, which had been extended to a width of 61 metres (200 ft) and length of 2,400 metres (8,000 ft) when there were still plans to use B-29s against Germany". Added a little bit more about these plans.
  • " Shell-Mex gave the USAF access to 30,000,000 litres (250,000 US bbl) of aviation spirit, enabling tankers at sea to divert to Bremen to supply the airlift" - this is a bit unclear
    checkY Tried to clarify. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 23 July, four B-29s" - the year here is unclear. Also, do we know why the British soldiers decided to damage the B-29s? Was this driven by ideology, or were they disgruntled national servicemen?
    checkY 1950. Officially, they were disgruntled servicemen. But Young notes that there is a strong sense that the matter was swept under the rug. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the SAC force in the UK in the 1940s and 50s and/or their training and war plans integrated with RAF Bomber Command? (which remained a pretty formidable force)
    checkY Yes. Added a section about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to permit operations in the scorching heat of the English summer" - hmm. I'd suggest either deleting "scorching heat", or tweaking to something less cynical.
    checkY Deleted "scorching". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the SAC tankers in the UK have a role in US nuclear war plans (for instance, to refuel bombers headed from the US to the Soviet Union), or were they there to support tactical operations in Europe?
    checkY SAC tankers were purely to support SAC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The British government was troubled by the 1956 U-2 incident, but clung to the cover story that they were for weather surveillance" - did the British Government know what the true purpose of the U-2s was? It's not clear from this wording.
    checkY Yes, it was aware. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the 'Emblem gallery' section needed? I'm not sure what value it adds.
    checkY Me neither. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Support My comments are now addressed. For FA, I'd suggest adding a para or section at the end noting that USAF strategic bomber deployments to the UK have continued after SAC's disbandment/re-designation (from memory, this has included further B-52 combat sorties and the establishment of facilities in the UK to allow B-2s to operate from USAF airfields there. I think that there's still a huge USAF munitions storage facility in the UK which is geared towards strategic bombers as well. Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

Looks interesting, I'll give it a look. Based on length and being generally busy, it might take me a few days to get all the way through this one. Hog Farm Bacon 20:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to review the whole thing; you can look at just part of it. I normally recommend looking at the bottom half, as most reviewers start at the top. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm too Type A/OCD to not review a whole article, so you'll be getting the whole review. In all honesty, I should be able to get through this in less than 24 hours, I just gave the longer span as a disclaimer.
Lead
  • "The bases were initially manned by the RAF, were handed over to the USAF in 1951" - You've actually never introduced the United States Air Force before this point in the lead, so go ahead and gloss and link the full name here.
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and the deport at RAF Burtonwood " - Is deport a typo for depot?
    checkY Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link North Sea? I consider myself to be a fairly well-educated Midwesterner, and I barely know where the North Sea is.
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Early Cold War Tensions
  • Since this is a rather long article, I'm not going to harp about most duplinks, as they're split up enough they're conceivably helpful. However, linking the Soviet Union and the USAAF twice in the first two paragraphs of this section is a touch excessive.
    checkY Cleaned up.
  • " Since there was insufficient clearance for a Fat man under a B-29" - Capitalization here.
    checkY capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although a lone YB-29, Hobo Queen (41-36963) - Is there a way to gloss the type of plane the Hobo Queen was? I had to Google this.
    checkY Linked YB-29. The "Y" means "prototype" (presumably because the letters P, R, O and T were already taken.) Hobo Queen was the only one to deploy though.
  • "ten aircraft of the 340th Bombardment Squadron ," - Extra space before the comma
    checkY Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Base development
  • Link North Sea
    Already linked (sea above)
Nuclear weapons
  • " that personnel carry side arms in case of sabotage" - I've always seen this spelled as one word. Is the two-word form a British English concept?
    checkY Spelt as one word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent with Communists vs communists
    checkY capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Hog Farm Bacon 23:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B-36 deployments
  • Link Texas
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another six B-36Ds had set out from Carswell Air Force Base in Texas but has been forced to return due to bad weather" - Weird tense switch here
    checkY Typo. D is next to S on the keyboard. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reconnaissance deployments
Cooperation with the RAF
  • "under Project E. when Air Chief Marshal Sir" - Capitalize the start of the sentence at When
    checkY Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Mills argued that in view of the thermonuclear weapons could cause in the UK, " - This doesn't read right to me
    checkY Word missing. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who had succeeded Le may" - Le May
    checkY Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Through that section. Gonna take a pause here for the night. I'll get the rest of it tomorrow. Hog Farm Bacon 01:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thor missile deployments
  • "provided technical support to the RAF Thor squadrons" - sentence fragment
    checkY Replaced full stop with comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Refuelling operations
  • "It relocated to RAF Mildenhgall on 1 July 1978," - spelling
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "US Navy aircraft carriers USS America " - Three links in a row, MOS:SEAOFBLUE
    checkY Tweaked wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
U-2 deployments
  • CIA Detachment A is all three words capitalized, but CIA detachment G only has two. I feel like they should have the same capitalization procedures
    checkY Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Good work on this. Hog Farm Bacon 14:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

I'll take a look at this soon. Hog Farm Bacon 16:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add a publishing location for Boyes
    checkY Added location. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clark & Angell - Be consistent with the use of title case, so capitalize diplomacy
    checkY Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • worldcat suggests that Duke 1985 has an OCLC
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SCHOLARSHIP says Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Does Wooldridge have this sort of influence?
    checkY Switched source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalize Documentary and History in the Wynn citation
    checkY Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • worldcat gives an OCLC for Wooldridge
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All sources reliable with the possible exception of Wooldridge. A handful of formatting things above. No source checks done. Hog Farm Bacon 19:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All issues addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

As usual, Hawkeye, this is top-notch. I'm trying really, really hard to pick up bits to criticise, if only to show that I've read it and this isn't a drive-by support! The only real criticism I have is that the article wanders away from the core subject in a few places, which may be allowable for a short article on a narrow subject but large articles on big subjects need to stay focused or they end up sprawling.

  • As a Midlander myself, I was surprised to see Brize Norton et al described as being in the Midlands. Those bases are all in Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire, which are usually considered to be southern England.
    checkY Corrected. It was probably referred to as such in one of the sources. (In my Master's thesis I referred to a place in southern England as "Perham Downs"; it is referred to as such in the official history, the war diaries, and letters from John Monash and my own uncle. Imagine my surprise after it became available on the internet to receive an email from one of the locals saying that his town was actually called "Perham Down".) Are all the bases in the correct locations? I had a lot of trouble with the map. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sir Arthur Henderson, announced that the two groups were in the UK on temporary duty, and noted that: What prompted him to make such a statement? And was it a statement to the press or to the House of Commons?
    checkY Hmm. The book sources the quote to "HC debs 454 col 123 (written answers 28 July 1948". So it was to the House of Commons. I have a added a few more details. Since it was a government back bencher, I presume the question was Dorothy Dix. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice you have a couple of red links for USAF colonels. There's nothing wrong with red links but have you determined that these officers are notable enough to sustain an article should somebody write one?
    Both were subsequently promoted to major general, and have entries on the USAF web site [14][15]
  • Tanker is probably an unnecessary link, ditto sidearm
    checkY Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • familiar problems of different terminology and work practices familiar from where, and can we have an example if you can fit it in concisely?
    Not sure... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Removed sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • personnel carry sidearms in case of sabotage Was this on-base only? And how standard was this for US personnel in (relative) peacetime? Noting of course that this is about 40 years before the UK's blanket handgun ban, though we've always been more restrictive of firearms than our cousins.
    checkY It wasn't normal for peacetime deployments, hence the order. Source doesn't say whether it was on the base only. Changed to "be equipped with". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soon after, Steed himself was put out of action "soon after" begs the question [when?], and I wonder how relevant the whole sentence is to the article. It seems like a tangent seeing as the narrative picks up where it left off afterwards.
    checkY In July. I thought it was a noteworthy incident. Deleted. 22:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • General Lauris Norstad, the Commander in Chief of United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE). The USAF Director of Plans and Operations, Major General Samuel E. Anderson, proposed that a new air division be created within SAC to control the deployments. This proposal was accepted by the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, General Hoyt Vandenberg, That's a lot of ranks, names, and positions in quick succession which rather hampers readability. Can we trim it a little bit? Perhaps right down to "a new air division was created"? At 9,000 words I think we can afford to sacrifice a little detail for readability.
    checkY Trimmed this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Douglas C-124 Globemaster II aircraft carrying Cullen, his staff, and personnel of the 509th Bombardment Group to the UK caught fire and was forced to ditch into the Atlantic. There were no survivors. Major General Archie J. Old, the designated commander of the 5th Air Division in French Morocco assumed temporary command of the 7th Air Division until Major General John P. McConnell, Johnson's deputy, took over on 24 May, and Old moved on to Morocco Quite a lot of detail on a peripheral subject.
    It's about the command. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but do we need the model of the plane and the unit name and the details of the crash? Can we not just say he died in a plane crash (which has its own article)? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Since the crash has its own article, I think it is safe to trim this back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wing remained returned to the US remained returned??
    checkY Deleted "remained". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • worth £55 million (equivalent to £1.2 billion in 2019) to the British economy.[69] Reflex was terminated at RAF Fairford I'm not sure how the second sentence follows on from the first.
    checkY Reorganised this a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • seized control of the US embassy in Tehran and took the staff hostage, demanding the return of the Shah of Iran, who had fled to the United States There's a lot of detail there for an operation whose only relevance is that one of the refuelling tankers took off from the UK.
    checkY Trimmed this back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • aircraft carriers USS America and USS Coral Sea of the US Navy in the Mediterranean Sea Not really relevant to SAC in the UK
    checkY Trimmed this back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there scope for a sentence or two about residual USAF deployments in the UK? Lakenheath and Mildenhall are still USAF bases.
    Yes, there is still a presence. There's also an article on the United States Air Force in the United Kingdom. The end of SAC just seemed like an appropriate place to stop. What do you think it should say?
    I'm not sure. I guess the reader could be forgiven for thinking that that was the end of the USAF in the UK if they don't click the "see also" or scroll down to the navbox at the bottom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Added a paragraph that said that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Are these changes okay with you? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I've been back to this twice with the intention of declaring support but somehow got distracted both times. Yes, I'm happy with the changes and I believe the A class (and FA, assuming you're heading that way) criteria are met. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:32, 4 November 2020 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

1st Missouri Field Battery[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

1st Missouri Field Battery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another Missouri Confederate artillery battery. While Landis' Battery from awhile back served mostly in Mississippi, this one fought primarily in Arkansas. A bit on the short side, but it didn't do a whole lot in it's service time, so there's not much to say here. Hog Farm Bacon 03:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. I have the following comments/questions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, During the middle of the year: was this 1863?
    • Yes, clarified
  • suggest splitting the lead into three paragraphs if possible (possibly 1863 as the second paragraph and 1864-65 as the third)
    • I've split where I thought it made the most sense to do so, tweak if you'd like
  • Even in the new position, Union artillery fire was too heavy to render the --> "Even in the new position, heavy Union artillery fire rendered the..."
    • Done
  • and the guns were withdrawn back up the hill --> "and the guns were withdrawn up the hill..."
    • Done
  • and the gunners abandoned the pieces and took shelter in some nearby woods: were these guns recovered, or captured by Union forces?
    • Not explicitly stated, but I'm assuming they were recovered, since they were hauled off the field by wrapping the wheels with blankets.
  • where Roberts resigned: do we know why?
    • McGhee doesn't say why, I can try to hunt through some primary sources
      • The Official Records don't say, and [16] doesn't say either.
  • Union cavalry was: were?
    • Done
  • inflicting casualties: do we know how many?
    • Not without trying to original research from casualty lists
  • was allowed to continue without further pursuit: was it deliberately allowed, or did the fighting itself render the Union forces unable to interfer with the withdraw?
    • Source doesn't say. I'm having to source the rear guard bit from Confederate battle reports due to lack of other sources, so I have to be really careful about stating reasons. I'll remove "allowed", that'll help some.
  • where Major General Richard Taylor and his District of West Louisiana was confronting --> "where Major General Richard Taylor and his District of West Louisiana were confronting" or "where Major General Richard Taylor's District of West Louisiana was confronting"
    • Went with the first. I'd prefer the second, but it leads to too many links in a row
  • Clark's brigade, along with Colonel Lucien C. Gause's brigade of Brigadier General Thomas J. Churchill's division, Ruffner's and Lesueur's Batteries moved much closer to the Union line: something is missing in this sentence
    • Rewrote it
  • who had been massacred at Poison Spring: were members of the battery responsible for the massacre, or another unit?
    • Confederate cavalry did the massacre, so apparently not. I've clarified that it was cavalry that did the killings
  • is there anything more that can be said about the period between November 1864 and June 1865? The narrative here seems to jump quite significantly to their parole without explanation how they came to be captured. Even if you simply added something like "After this, the battery saw no further action and June 7, 1865...were paroled having surrendered to Union forces when..."
    • Done

@AustralianRupert: - I've responded as best as I can to all of these. Hog Farm Bacon 14:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

I reviewed this at GAN, and picked up most things there. I have a few comments:

  • The lead should include the fact that it was renamed the 1st Missouri Field Battery in November 1864
    • Done, although not bolded, as that name is bolded at the very beginning
  • "as the its commander"
    • Oops. Removed
  • "Lyon hitassaulted the encampment"
    • Done
  • "army commander Major General Thomas C. Hindman" what army are we talking about here?
  • any idea what the "defunct artillery unit" was?
    • Von Puhl's Missouri Battery. Named, but not linked, as Von Puhl's Battery is not notable.
  • suggest "was unengaged in a reserve role"→"was in a reserve role and was unengaged."
    • Done
  • suggest "who was in overall command of Confederate forces"
    • Done
  • link Camden, Arkansas at first mention in the body
    • Done
  • "attacked the Union line, Ruffner's and Lesueur's Batteries moved forward in support" - insert comma
    • Done

Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review -- pass[edit]

Placeholder. Looks like this needs a source review? I can try my hand at it if you want. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Eddie891: - It would be much appreciated if you could. I don't have Shea, Forsyth, Gottschalk, or Johnson physically with me at the moment, although I can try to get ahold of copies quickly if you need some sort of scan of the page for verification. Hog Farm Bacon 18:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can try and make it to my local university library sometime this weekend and I can get copies of everything except for Gottschalk, I think. That should be enough for an adequate spotcheck. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update: I've gotten copies of Shea and Forsyth, will commence source review shortly. While I have them, Hog Farm, is there any other spot-checking that needs to be taken care of? I can scan you some pages if you'd like to have them. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Eddie891: - Thanks, but I'll be fine. I've got all of the books at home, and the university I attend is fairly local for me, so if I ever need a spot check, I can run home real quick and pick up a copy. I think this one's A-Class, but eventually I'm hoping to do some polishing to get this up to FAC-able. Hog Farm Bacon 21:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initial comments
    • cite 16 would benefit from an archive url imo, though opinions are divided upon adding the archive url before the link is dead. I think it's helpful because who knows if we'll be around to see when the link (theoretically) becomes dead.
      • Internet archive bot ain't working for me at the moment. I could do it by hand, but I'm feeling a touch lazy at the moment, so I'll wait until the bot's working to handle that, since it's not urgent
    • Alwyn Barr can be linked, if this is the correct person
      • Done. Never would have guessed that Barr is notable.
    • What makes Gottschalk reliable? I'm struggling to find anything about this publisher or the author
      • It's an obscure publisher, and the author is a journalist, so his credentials aren't the greatest, but the book won the Douglas Southhall Freeman Award, which means something. Reviewed in the Journal of Military History. Also reviewed in Civil War history. Those are both pretty average reviews, but Gottschalk's issues are with weak prose, and his scholarship is considered to be good. I can try to dig up another source, but I think it's okay for the one thing it's cited for. I used it a bit heavier at Landis's Missouri Battery, which passed FAC, so if Gottschalk is deemed reliable, I'll need to replace it in there to prevent a FAR. Also reviewed in the Journal of Southern History, but I can't access that review.
    • Cite 16 uses DMY and MDY in the same ref.
      • Slapped {{use mdy dates}} on there, so that'll fix it automatically.
  • Other sources are written by reputable authors and published by reputable publishers. Spot check to follow. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hog Farm, my spotcheck is at User:Eddie891/spotcheck, wasn't sure where to put it. There's some minor stuff, it's probably mostly stuff I messed up on. Happy to pass this + support on prose when my comments are addressed. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Eddie891: - I've replied to the points there, mostly stuff I messed up on. I'm a bit embarrassed by some of the stuff I screwed up on; if this ever makes it to FAC, I'll have to get it a thorough source comparison myself to make sure there ain't anything else. Hog Farm Bacon 02:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cool, happy to pass in that case. Consider this also a Support on prose, I read through the whole article in spot checking and was very happy with it's state. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

All right I hope you know this easter egg "show me what you got"? ;)

  • Parsons' --> Parsons's Per the apostrophe's article an extra "s" should be added after an "s" with exceptions to Bible figures or awkward singular nouns. I think this isn't an awkward singular noun.
    • I've added the apostrophe, which is what I think you're asking for.
  • Yes, sorry forgot a word.
  • the state of Missouri did not secede despite being a slave state Why not? This creates a question here.
    • I've tried to clarify why (very politically divided), is this better?
  • Yeah much better.
  • MM/DD, vs MM/DD (no comma)?
    • Which ones do you think are problems? I'm not seeing one that's incorrect, but I'm also half-asleep right now.
  • Well I hope you had a good night sleep? It's just odd to see some dates like "November 3," with a comma and dates like "March 7" who don't use a comma. Maybe standardise them?
  • In February 1862, pressure from Brigadier General Samuel R. Curtis' Army of the Southwest Union or Confederate? Curtis also needs an extra s.
    • Done both.
  • the Union army, commanded by Major General Not "the Union Army, commanded by Major General"?
    • Union Army is a proper noun, which properly refers to the entire combined strength of all Union forces. In this case, Union is just an adjective here, as only one of the many Union armies is being referred to, so it is a common noun.
  • Is there a legacy, the Battery made?
    • Not that I've seen in any source. I don't believe that any units claim legacy from it, and I'm unaware of any significant monuments to the battery. The Trans-Mississippi Confederates largely were forgotten after the war.
  • Optional the main Union line held under fire --> "the main Union line was held under fire"
    • That changes my intended meaning. I'm rephrased it to "held up under fire", to make it clearer what I meant.
  • That also looks okay.

Nothing much to say except good work of course. I also removed the unnecessary double spaces. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • @CPA-5: - I've replied to all, although a few of these replies are just queries. Hog Farm Bacon 02:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Hog Farm, looks like they also put me in quarantine since I made contact with someone who has tested positive. So have more time for reviewing another nomination of yours let me know? ;) The queries are now answered. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CPA-5: - I think I've added the commas I could find; hopefully I didn't miss any. Hog Farm Bacon 14:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks better. Great job - support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2020 (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 Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Milorad Ekmečić[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Milorad Ekmečić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A bit of a change of pace for me, a Yugoslav and Bosnian Serb historian who "went national" during the Yugoslav Wars, and was one of a group of prominent Yugoslav historians who eschewed the standards of international scholarship and concentrated exclusively on sectarian myths during the period of conflict in the former Yugoslavia, resulting in the production of what has been described by several scholars of the period as "pseudohistory". He was also an advisor to the convicted war criminal Radovan Karadžić during the Bosnian War. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Only image meets fair use requirements (t · c) buidhe 15:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review
  • Some information in the article is sourced to tabloid newspapers, Kurir and Blic. Multiple sources say that Kurir is sensationalist, so it may be unreliable for information. Blic is published by Axel Springer, whose German tabloid Bild is considered unreliable (WP:RSP).
Out of an abundance of caution, I have removed both, replacing them with Novosti and reliable sources already in the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other sources are reliable. (t · c) buidhe 15:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image and source reviews, buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • Without (yet) reading the article, the lead seems proportionately large, making up over 25% of the prose.
trimmed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an analysis of Serbian historiography since that year observed". Optional: Probably technically correct, but it reads oddly that "an analysis" can "observe".
went with "concluded". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Academician Milorad-Ekmečić passed away" is in the list of references, but is not used.
Yes, I've removed the citations to Blic on the basis of buidhe's source review. Removed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He visited Princeton University for one year" Is it known when?
1961, added, plus a stint at Ann Arbor. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Initially held in house arrest at the elementary school". Possibly I don't understand what house arrest means, but it doesn't seem to add up that he was held in house arrest in a school. Did the school have accommodation attached? What springs to my mind is a mat in the gym.
This was poorly translated, I have checked the source again and clarified that he was first held in the school, then in house arrest, from which he escaped. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ekmečić authored a number of important works in socialist Yugoslavia". Should "in" be 'on'?
again, poorly expressed, changed the sentence to make it clearer, some of his work was actually about pre-Yugoslav times, so it was his work in the time of socialist Yugoslavia that was important (although some of it was also about socialist Yugoslavia, if you see what I mean? Any clearer now? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ekmečić participated directly during the Bosnian War". I don't see what "directly" is trying to communicate here. Possibly it needs unpacking a little more.
I meant to make a distinction from those academics that merely barracked from the sidelines, but deleted it as it didn't really achieve much. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't help feeling that I would like more, possibly a lot more, from the penultimate paragraph. It reads almost as if you've censored yourself.
Working... I will re-examine this, and see if there is any more criticisms of his post-1991 works I could add. Frankly, he is just one of many that went this way, which is one reason why I rarely use local post-1991 historians for anything other than bare facts, and even then you have to be careful because of the blatant chauvinism. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed to be missing a specific, detailed example or three. I imagine that Nielsen and Ramet would not have put the boot in without providing such? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've located some excellent sources, but have been a bit distracted by an AE matter which is now resolved. Back to this shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Gog, I reckon I've explained his earlier views better now, and supported the criticisms more strongly. How is it reading now? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good to me. Very nice work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

  • "Introduction to the Science of History'" - There appears to be an extra ' in here
Deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ekmečić authored a number of important works in socialist Yugoslavia" - Since the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ceased to exist in 1992, and this is referring to post-1992 events, I assume you mean "on", not "in"
I think I've clarified this now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be feasible to briefly state who awarded him those various awards without taking up too much space?
Added one. The source of all but the Enlightenment Award are explained now, I haven't been able to find anything about it, except that the various academies mention it, so it must be important. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the prose you spell the author's name MacDonald, but in the references and sources you use Macdonald, it's best to be consistent here
Common issue for me with this guy. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As part of his connection to Karadžić, Ekmečić was also a founder of the radical nationalist Serb Democratic Party in Bosnia and Herzegovina" - could use a timeframe for this
1990, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Blic source is listed in the sources, but is not used
Yes, deleted as a result of the source review. Gone now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be indicated that ""Милорад Екмечић" [Milorad Ekmečić]. Academy of Sciences and Arts of the Republika Srpska. 2017. Retrieved 23 December 2019." is a non-English source
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work here, I do believe that's all from me. Hog Farm Bacon 19:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for taking a look, Hog Farm. I reckon I might have addressed all your points. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Suprises me that this still up after one and a half month. I'll have a quick view.

I think it is because he was a controversial historian, and we don't get too many historians coming through ACR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead doesn't mention his early life and it can have a little bit more information from his "Career".
Added a bit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From October 1944 until July 1945, Ekmečić was a member of the Yugoslav Partisans Was he an armed partisan or just sabotages or something else?
No detail in sources, but given his age (16), he was probably a courier or carried supplies. I haven't been able to find out much about what he did, his detachment isn't even listed in the main text on the Bosnia-Herzegovinian Partisan detachments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in three editions and translated into German Unlink German.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He visited Princeton University in 1961 Where is this? Surely the reader would figure it out in Princeton but would probably think "where the hell lies Princeton".
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • time as a visiting professor at the University of Michigan Most people probably wouldn't know in which city the university would lies.
Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read the second paragraph without knowing where all these happened? Still in the University of Michigan? It also doesn't help that he is in the next paragraph got arrested at the start of the war. I assume he went back?
No, he was at the UoS from 1968 to 1992, as previously explained, Michigan was just a temporary visiting professorship. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bosnian Serb-controlled proto-state known as the Republika Srpska.[3][1 Re-order the refs.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ekmečić was arrested by the government-loyalist Green Berets Are you referring the Bosnian Government here? Since October 1992 the Croats also declared their independence.
Clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In February 2019, the president of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić --> "In February 2019, the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić" Title?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • proposed that a street in Belgrade be named after Ekmečić --> "proposed that a street in Belgrade would be named after Ekmečić"?
That's not right, the current wording is fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • his views considerably from his earlier days as a unitarian,[17][6] Re-order the refs here.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • religious flavour by claiming that the Catholic Church was the greatest Unlink Catholic Church - is too common to link.
OK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a "check ISSN" error in the "Journals and dissertations" section.
An over-enthusiastic ndash adder, was supposed to be a hyphen. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you at least give us a date at the infobox's image? If not add then "A portrait of".
I can't, don't have one as the source doesn't say when it was taken, but I assume after 1992. The caption is pretty standard, your suggestion is more for alt text or a painting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ekmečić authored a number of important works --> "Ekmečić authored several important works"
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this book, Ekmečić drew upon nineteenth century developments --> "In this book, Ekmečić drew upon nineteenth-century developments"?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking this over, CPA-5! I think I've addressed everything I can. We disagree on a couple of minor points. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peacemaker67: Good morning, hope you had great night? Could you also add a book code or a link for "The Living Word of Milorad Ekmečić". If not then I'm still happy to support. The rest looks fine to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks again, CPA-5! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 23 October 2020 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

French aircraft carrier Béarn[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

French aircraft carrier Béarn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Béarn was an incomplete Lorraine-class dreadnought that France converted into an aircraft carrier after WW I. Her pre-war career was uneventful and her aircraft were disembarked at the beginning of WW II to operate from land bases. The carrier was used for training new pilots and ferried over a hundred tons of gold to Canada in early 1940. The armistice with Germany caused the carrier to be diverted to the French West Indies and Béarn was effectively interned there for the next 3 years. After the islands joined Free France in 1943, she was converted into an aircraft ferry. After the war she helped to ferry troops, aircraft and supplies to French Indochina for several years as the French attempted to regain control of their former colony. The ship then became the flagship of a combined submarine and anti-submarine unit before she was scrapped in 1967. In preparation for an eventual FAC, I'd like for reviewers to look for unlinked or explained jargon and identify infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • The infobox gives a decommission date of 21 March 1967, I'm not seeing this in there. I am seeing a stricken date of 31 March 1967 in the prose, is one of the two dates an error?
  • Does Le Masson have an ISBN or OCLC?
  • Tucker's just an editor, probably best to point that out.
    • Good catch
  • Is Moulin, Morareau, & Picard possibly published in 1996 per [https://www.amazon.com/B%C3%A9arn-Commandant-Morareau-Picard-Moulin/dp/290967522X?
    • Maybe, the book actually doesn't provide the year of publication and I prefer to leave it at that
  • Worldcat says the ISBN for Tucker is a second edition, note that.
  • Are you sure Genda was an author for that volume of Aircraft Carriers? Both Worldcat and Amazon list only Polmar for volume 2
    • Genda's listed on the title pages of both volumes

I think that's about it. Source checks not done, as I don't have any of the books, but it's an experienced nominator, so no issues with that. Hog Farm Bacon 01:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

This article is in good shape, and I have only minor comments:

  • "the French intended to use her" - not sure why the nationality of the navy needs to be noted here, and the wording is imprecise
  • The 'Design and description' section is confusing given that this ship was completed as an aircraft carrier, not a battleship. Tweaking this to make it clear that it was the original intended design would help.
  • "to intimidate the Berber tribesmen who could not reconcile themselves to French rule" - this is bit convoluted and euphemistic Nick-D (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking this over. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC) Support Sorry for being so slow to follow up here - I missed this reply and didn't think to look in. My comments are now addressed, and I'm pleased to support this interesting article. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed[edit]

Lead

  • ...and had to divert for emergency repairs. divert where?

Construction and conversion

  • Shouldn't the "Société" part of the shipbuilder's name appear in the infobox?
    • Like the English "Company", Société is often omitted when referring to companies, so I've deleted it here to match the infobox.

Career

  • ...commissioned for sea trials on 1 September 1926 and commissioned on 5 December 1927,... suggest changing the first usage of "commissioned" to avoid the close repetition of that word.
    • The first commissioning really isn't that important, so I've deleted it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ship made one last training cruiser... typo here

This looks in pretty good order, only minimal issues identified. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Somebody must have fixed the typo already, 'cause I can't find it. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

All images have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

Looks like this one's just one review away from passing, so I'll give it some attention. Hog Farm Bacon 20:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the infobox, indicate the the beam length you're using is the one at the flight deck
  • Where are you getting the 8.86 figure for the draft in the infobox? I'm not seeing that in the prose. In fact, the prose gives a different number.
  • "A week the carrier loaded aboard the reconnaissance squadron Escadrille 7S1 and the bomber squadron Escadrille 7B1, both equipped with Levasseur PL.4 aircraft" - This seems to be missing a word.
    • I'm not seeing this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Sturmvogel 66: - The issue seems to be in "A week the carrier loaded". Seems like maybe there ought to be a "later" in there. Hog Farm Bacon 14:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • An excellent example of how what's in your head as the author makes you completely blind as to what you actually wrote!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 8 May the carrier had aboard 10 D.1s, 5 LB.2s, 16 PL.4s and 3 CAMS 37s" - This overmatches the previously-stated max capacity of 32. Was it just normally overloaded, or were there changes to capacity in the remodels?
    • No, I think that it's just that the fighters were considerably smaller than the PL.4s and the seaplanes. Her airwing wasn't intended to have that many fighters, but they were transitioning between models so I guess that they needed more than usual numbers to facilitate the training on the new ones.
  • "1934–1935 Reconstruction" - Not convinced that the word in this section heading needs capitalized
  • "where the 155 mm gun had formerly been" - I'm assuming you mean the plural guns, right?
    • Good catch
  • You mention in the lead that she was very cost-inefficient to run as a barracks ship, although this isn't mentioned in the body.

That's it from me, I think. Hog Farm Bacon 23:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2020 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 2nd Armoured Division, of the British Army, was created in the early stages of the Second World War and later destroyed in North Africa. The division was reformed in 1976, by the re-designation of the 2nd Infantry Division. The Cold War-era division was based in Germany, and was disbanded in 1982. The article has previously passed its GAN, and was given the once over by the GOCE. I believe the issues previously brought up have been addressed, and that it is now ready for the next stage of reviewing.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I reviewed this at GA and believe that it meets the A-class standards. I corrected a couple of typos. [17] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your review, corrections, and support.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Querying fn 49 - the citation is a little sparse. It could be made clear that this is a PRO document.
    I have updated this with a template and source info, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All sources are of high quality
  • Spot checks performed on fn 36, 100, 109, 114, 157 - no issues.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is looking good. Some comments:

Lead
  • in general, the lead refers to "elements" of the division, but it would be good to specify at least which brigades or a quantum of fighting regiments/battalions
    • suggest "elements of the 1st Armoured Division were assigned to it."→"two armoured brigades were assigned to it from the 1st Armoured Division"
      • Ah, I misread the body. Suggest "the 1st Light Armoured Brigade was assigned to it from the 1st Armoured Division, and the 22nd Heavy Armoured Brigade was transferred in from Southern Command."
    • suggest "In August 1940, elements of the division were transported to Egypt to reinforce Middle East Command"→"In August 1940, an armoured regiment from the division was transported to Egypt and transferred to the 7th Armoured Division, but it was replaced."
  • with the threat of a German invasion of the United Kingdom
    • piping just "invasion" is quite easter-eggy, suggest a broader pipe as above
  • suggest "Before leaving it swapped a brigade with the 1st Armoured Division, but as the new brigade consisted of only one armoured regiment, this reduced the division to a total of three armoured regiments"
  • suggest "an expeditionary force that was dispatched to Greece"
    • comma after Lustre
  • suggest "a German-Italian counter-attack"
    • comma after Sonnenblume
  • suggest "after the 2nd Infantry Division was renamed"→"by renaming the 2nd Infantry Division"
  • suggest "In 1982, the division reverted to its infantry title, and ceased to be an armoured formation."
    • suggest "In 1982, it reverted to an infantry division"

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for reviewing this article too. I have made edits to the lede based off the above comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, just a few tweaks before I dive into the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, after I made the changes you initially suggested, our friend Keith did a copyedit of the article including several of the tweaks. I have gone back through the lede to tweak again, per your comments above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Body
  • Iinterwar period
  • odd piping on "armoured-warfare" just link the article
  • link Division (military)#Infantry division, Division (military)#Armoured division
  • explain that the motor division was a form of infantry division
  • "They had "concluded" who is they? The Germans or British?
  • "According to French, this thinking" which thinking? In general the last few sentences in the para are confusing, apparently jumping from British to German and back. It would be better to describe the British approach, then contrast it with the German one
  • for "annexe the Sudetenland" link German occupation of Czechoslovakia

Down to Formation and home service, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have made tweaks per the above comments. On re-reading the info by French, totally see where you were coming from. I have re-orded that, and hopefully it is more clear now.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hotblack had joined the Royal Tank Corps in 1916, and by 1918..."
  • specify that both of the initial brigades consisted only of armoured regiments, if that is correct?
  • "the 1st Battalion, The Rangers," comma
  • "armoured warfare instructor"
  • suggest "On paper, the division had an establishment of 340 tanks... but by May, the division..."
  • just because lorries isn't really used outside the UK, suggest linking truck
  • "The 3H was transferred...Division, and was replaced..."
  • 3rd RTR→3RTR
  • suggest "Prior to being dispatched, the 22nd Armoured Brigade was exchanged with the 3rd Armoured Brigade of the 1st Armoured Division, but it only included one armoured regiment, 5th RTR.[35]"
  • Given the exchange appears on face value to have been an uneven one, why "The exchange brought the division up to 334 tanks"? Wouldn't this have reduced the tank strength? Perhaps some additional tank distribution occurred within the division prior to the exchange? If this isn't clear, maybe go with something like "After the exchange, the division tank strength was 334 tanks:..."
  • in general, try to avoid using parentheses, as it interrupts the flow of the prose. Suggest "159 light tanks; 74 Cruiser Mk IIs and 83 Cruiser Mk IVs; and 18 close support cruisers, which were armed with 3.7 in (94 mm) howitzers in place of the standard 2-pounder." and link QF 3.7-inch mountain howitzer
  • the tank strength and the number of armoured regiments on arrival in Egypt is almost contradictory. How could there have only been three armoured regiments, but 334 tanks? That is over 100 tanks per regiment, when the establishment of an armoured regiment at the time must have been 50-60 at best.
    So these last three points seems to be the result of my own confusion and conflicting info in the sources. The October stats were cited to Hughes, "The British Armies in World War Two: An Organisational History", which I do not have access to. A while ago I messaged the editor, who inserted the info, and they started it was accurate to what the source said. The article previously had a table labelled "Tank strengths before departure in October 1940", and included the following info: KDG: 52 MK VI, 3H: 52 MK VI, 4H: 52 MK VI, 1st RHA: 4 MK VI, 2nd RTR: 6 A9 and 1 squadron of A10s, 3rd RTR: 1 squadron of A10s, 6 A10 CS, and 2 squadrons of A13s, and 5th RTR: 1 squadron of A10s, 6 A10 CS, and 2 squadrons of A13s (74 A10s and 83 A13s in total).
    Newbold provides stats for the end of September and the end of October, based off two reports per CAB 70/2 Return of Tanks in the Hands of the Troops in the United Kingdom. Both give the strength of the division, but does not include a breakdown by regiment. The states for both months include the 22nd Arm Bde, and include the 3 Arm Bde with 1st Arm Div.
    Joslen does not state any element of the 2RTR (3rd Arm Bde) was with the 2nd Div, and it shipped out and joined 7th Arm Div prior to the brigade switches between the 1st and 2nd. Playfair does not mention it being a squadron down when it is mentioned during the Compass fighting, and I dont have access to "Seconds Out!: A History of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment" to see if there is anything in there. Joslen also notes that the establishment for this period was 52 tanks per each of the six regiments, and ~340 in total. Newbold's cited stats make sense based off of the 4H, KDG, 3RTR, 2H, 3CLY, 4CLY. This is partially where my confusion comes in. All sources refer to the KDG being an armoured car regiment. But, this appears to be the result of them converting to such a role once they arrived in Egypt. I am working on getting a better source, but for the moment I have thrown in a line about his sourced to their website (which doesnt give much info). I infer they left their light tanks in the UK.
    So, considering the loss of the 22nd Arm Bde and the KDG giving up their tanks, it seems the division shipped about 160 tanks? I have removed reference to Hughes for the moment, reworded the info cited to Newbold, and thrown in a short sentence about the KDG in the "Arrival in the Middle East" section. For the moment, lacking additional detail on the KDG, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot get full access to their regimental history, so I cannot state where the tanks went but I have been able to add a little detail to explain the England-Egypt tank discrepancy.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4H, 3rd RTR and the 5th RTR→4H, 3RTR and 5RTR
  • link counter-attack
  • suggest "and advance as far as Sollum near the Libyan border, if the situation allowed"
  • suggest "It was also felt there was little threat until at least May, at which time additional forces would be available to reinforce the Cyrenaica garrison."
  • overran→overrun
  • Greek government
  • "and by reducing the garrison in Cyrenaica"
  • how many tank regiments were part of "1st Armoured Brigade was detached from the division"?
  • the 12th RHA→12RHA
  • 102nd Anti-Tank Regiment→102nd (Northumberland Hussars) Anti-Tank Regiment

Down to Move to Libya, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have worked on the majority of what you have identified above. I have left a more detailed response for one point.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in general, is is common practice to drop the definite article in front of unit abbreviations, ie the 5RTR→5RTR
    I have had issues with this when moving towards FAC, where it has been argued that the definite article should be included (if I am not mistaken). I have not made this change just yet, awaiting feedback on this point.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When given in full, ie "the 5th Battalion, Foot and Mouth Regiment" the definite article is needed, but it is not used when using the initialism "5FM". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • engine-lives→engine lives
  • "Benghazi containedwas the port that was closest to the frontline"
  • suggest "Germany sent the Afrika Korps, consisting of the 5th Light Division and 15th Panzer Division, under the command of Generalleutnant Erwin Rommel."
  • there is an extra space in "Panzer IV"
  • by Ariete→by the Ariete division
  • amti-tank mines
  • "the Axis forces resumed their attack"
  • Luftwaffe needn't be italicised, as it is now in Merriam-Webster (per the rule of thumb at MOS:FOREIGNITALIC
  • introduce AA
  • extra space in "request for the 3rd Armoured Brigade"
  • "a German artiller barrage"
  • suggest using "2nd Support group" throughout, for clarity
  • perhaps state how far Antelat is from somewhere else in order to place it geographically
    The sources do not provide a specific distance from this location to another, so I have provided a rough estimate based off the map cited within the sourced pages.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Benghazi was liberatedcaptured by Axis forces at dawn" neutral
  • in general the maps are cluttered, could you get a trimmed up version of the map that just shows the coastal areas where the fighting occurred?
    I was not able to locate template for just Cyrenaica, which would have assisted with this. However, I have made several changes to remove the markers that are not necessary for each section, and added another map to spread a few out. I have also shrunk the map markers too. Do these changes work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest mentioning Vaughan when the 3rd Indian Motor Brigade is first mentioned
  • "captured 21 Fooians after they ventured towards Mechili" Italians or Germans?
  • comma after "near Tobruk"
  • move the link to vanguard to first mention
  • "in the deaths of the entire crew"
  • 'M' Battery 3rd RHA
  • headquarters staff

Down to Cold War. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the further feedback. I have worked on the points you have highlighted, and left a few comments above for you.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • say when West Germany was created
  • suggest "While the BAOR fluctuated in size, including the number of divisions, the 2nd Infantry Division was part of it throughout this period."
  • two armoured battalionsregiments
  • "and the increased threat offrom the Soviet Union"
  • "headquarters units"
  • link mobile defence
  • "three mechanised infantry battalions"
  • link mechanised infantry at first mention and remove later link
  • link Attrition warfare
  • "the 2nd Infantry Division was re-designated as the 2nd Armoured Division"
  • suggest "Lübbecke, West Germany" and "Bünde, Germany"
  • "four squadrons; and three"
  • link Pioneer (military)
  • "headquarters of the armoured regiments"
  • the troop deployments weren't to Ulster (which includes Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan in the Republic), they were to NI
  • the 4th and the 12th Armoured bBrigades
  • inline→in line
  • "The Ddivision's assets"
  • there is no citation for the Divisional troops in the 2nd Armoured Division (Libya, 1941) OOB

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you again for your further feedback. I have made changes to the article based off your new comments, and your response to my earlier note.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

Looks like this one only needs one more editor's input, so I'll take a look at this tomorrow. Hog Farm Bacon 02:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Possibly create a redirect to here under the American English spelling of "Armored"? It's possible an American like me could read about this unit, and then search on here for more information, naturally using the American spelling
    New page and redirect createdEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was an division of the British Army" - a division
  • " In March, a German-Italian counter-attack, led to the destruction of that part of the division still in" - Don't think you need the second comma "a German-Italian counter-attack" isn't an appositive
    Addressed the two points aboveEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "led to the destruction of that part of the division still in Cyrenaica and the ejection of the British, except for Tobruk" - How about "except for in Tobruk"? The current phrasing makes it sound like Tobruk is part of the British, not a city. Also link Tobruk
    I have a couple of changes to this sentence, including your recommendationsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
  • Not seeing where the strength figure of 10,750 men is cited anywhere
    Tweaked and added a citeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "French wrote that it was "'tank-heavy' ... with too few infantry and support arms. It had six cavalry light tank regiments ... three medium regiments ... two motorized infantry battalions and two artillery regiments" - Maybe this is an engvar thing, but in American English at least, you never see the ellipses used in this way in formal writing.
    So, I have updated them to the single character variation, and the space before and after aligns with the Oxford style guide. Other than that, nothing is standing out to me. Could you elaborate?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Formation and home service
  • "In early 1940, the 1st Armoured Division had priority for equipment and the 2nd Armoured Division had to make do with the remainder" - Can you briefly state why? I'm assuming this is because the 1st Division was the front-line unit, while the 2nd was intended to be more of a reserve, but that's just guesswork
    Unfortunately, I do not have the source that is reference so cannot elaborate from it. However, I have made an addition to the article based off an essay wrote shortly thereafter, and by the 1st Arm Div's CO.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna take a pause here, I'll get back soon. Hog Farm Bacon 16:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Axis offensive
  • "Nearing the fort, they found it occupied and came under fire and German armoured cars moved forward" - Can this be rephrased to avoid two "ands" in the same sentence?
    I have made a tweakEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two troops from 5RTR were ordered to conduct a rearguard action and took hull-down positions" - Is it known how many tanks were with these two troops?
    Updated to reflect actual tank strengthEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Msus at the first use, not the second
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the end of the day, the 3rd Armoured Brigade had been reduced to 18 light tanks, 26 Italian tanks, and 12 cruisers" - Are the cruisers still the Cruisers tanks you've been mentioning? If so, capitalize
    They were, so updatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Hog Farm Bacon 18:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The 3rd Indian Motor Brigade was attached to the division during the day, most of which was at Mechili." - So previously, you've associated the 3rd Indian Motor Brigade with Mechili. But now, the phrasing implies that most of the whole division was at Mechili. Is this right?
    No, the division was spread out and only this brigade was concentrated at Mechili. I have removed the latter part of the sentence to avoid confusion, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In total, around 3,000 prisoners were taken" - Do we know how many escaped?
    At least 150, but the sources do not provide a more reliable figure: "His force now comprised his own battery, 2 Browne's troop, some 90 sappers of the 4th Field Squadron, and some 60 men of the Lancers under Rajendrasinhji." I have mentioned this in the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our article on Neame says he was captured on 6 April. Seems odd not to mention that.
    I have updated a relevant sentence in the article to include thisEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What were the division's total casualties in all of the North Africa operations before it was disbanded
    Unknown. I have not found any sources that provide that number. We do know, however, that only nine tanks were lost in action; I have added that to the opening of the assessment section.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cold War
  • I don't think White paper should be capitalized where it's used in the common noun sense towards the beginning of the section
    Capital letter droppedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Isby wrote brigades were reintroduced after the flaws of the new system became apparent." - Are the flaws the same thing as "He suggested the new structure may see problems "after some days in combat when fatigue and strain begin to take their toll" on the divisional headquarters and those in charge of the battlegroups"? If not, it's not really clear what these flaws are.
    The only thing that Isby has to say on the situation is "Flaws in the new structure soon became apparent. The drain of 3,000 BAOR troops to Ulster caused some armored and mechanized battalions to reduce their fourth squadrons or companies to cadre status. Hence, the brigade echelon of command was restored in January 1981." I believe Dodd's take is probably the most accurate, they realized the idea was flawed and they needed full time brigade staff. For example, Kneen & Sutton wrote "The [Brigade Electrical and Mechanical Engineers] had been early victims of reorganization, but subsequent exercises pointed to the clear need for an experienced officer at what was now the Task Force level" resulting in workshops providing officers to the task force hqs, a solution that "was an unsatisfactory expedient". They mention one major who "remembers the relief throughout 1 (BR) Corps among his fellow [Deputy Chief of Staffs] when each of the reformed brigades received a REME major, a warrant officer and clerk as full-time members of the brigade staff. The BEME and his staff were back at last." This implies the lack of full time staff was seen as a better solution to ad hocing it based off battalion HQs. I think that might be in danger of inferring what the source is saying though, and I am not sure how best to word that into the article (due to a lack of knowledge on the subject, and a lack of other sources outright stating what the issue was). Further feedback very much welcome.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other
  • "Watson, Graham; Rinaldi, Richard A. (2005). The British Army in Germany: An Organizational History 1947–2004. Takoma Park, MD: Tiger Lily Publications for Orbat.com. ISBN 978-0-972-02969-8. Details the division's order of battle during the late 1970s and the early 1980s." - Belongs in the further reading, not the external links
    MovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hawkeye7, EnigmaMcmxc, and Peacemaker67: - I have one significant concern about this article. I almost wonder if this should be split. I'm personally not seeing a claim in the article that the Cold War unit bears any sort of lineage from the WWII unit. I've also noticed that the sources used change abruptly at the WWII/Cold War split, suggesting that RS may treat these as two separate units. The length isn't an issue here, but this article just feels to me like it's trying to mesh together two concepts that aren't really strongly connected. Unless the RS treat the Cold War unit as a continuation of the WWII unit's legacy/history, I'm personally of the opinion that this should be split, rather than kept as a kinda quasi-WP:SIA. I'd like to here what the nominator and the other reviewers think, though. EnigmaMxmxc certainly has more knowledge about this subject than idea to, and PM and Hawkeye are liable to, as well. Hog Farm Bacon 19:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If we can gain a consensus among the four of us, I am good with whatever is decided. How would two articles about a division named the same go (2nd Armoured Division (World War II) (United Kingdom)?. Based off what I have read, I do not believe the Cold War edition claimed any sort of lineage other than a shared name (for example, there are sources explaining the difference between similarly named WWI and WWII divisions that is lacking for this WWII/Cold War issue). If anything, it was more of a continuation of the 2nd Division (kept the insignia, for example).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the question of a split is the only thing holding up my support, the rest is all addressed satisfactorily. Hopefully we can get some more input on this. Hog Farm Bacon 17:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with a split because of the lack of a historical connection. The insignia of the 2nd Division being the Cold War 2nd Armoured Division's insignia indicates that it carries on the 2nd Division traditions rather than those of the WWII 2nd Armoured. Due to its combat service, the WWII division is the primary topic and IMO does not need a disambiguator as the Cold War division existed for six years in peacetime, so the Cold War division should be the one with the disambiguator and linked to via a hatnote from the WWII 2nd Armoured article. Alternately, the 8 paragraphs on the Cold War division could be placed in the 2nd Division article instead. Kges1901 (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Split, per EnigmaMcmxc's points above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should avoid placing the info on the 2nd Div's article, only due to its 200-something year history (on and off). I note that a similar split occurred with the French 4th Armoured Division: 4th Armored Division (France, 1940) and 4th Armoured Division (France, 1967). Should we follow suit with the naming convention? 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom, 1939) and 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom, 1976)?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the proposed split. Either the post-1976 division traces its lineage from the 2nd Infantry Division, with 200 years of history, yes, in that case the post-1945 history should be attached, possibly as a header "2nd Armoured Division 1976 - 1982," to 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom). Article sizes are 45kb for 2ID and 88ish kb for 2AD, so that's fine. We could double the size of the infantry-only history before we bump up against WP:SIZERULE, going on the size of this division's article. Or, the article should be left unchanged without a split on the argument that all divisions named "2nd Armoured" are the same formation. Divisions sometimes change their insignia; it doesn't mean that the whole lineage is dissolved.
the French 4th Armoured Division is not a similar case: the 1940 division is the 4eme Division cuirassée whose article title should be in the untranslated French, because to translate that properly we would need to indicate the connection with a https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cuirasse, while by 1967 the French had fallen into line with British and American usage and the division's title was 4eme Division blindée which effectively exactly translates as 'Armoured.' Buckshot06 (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The post-war lineage of the 2nd Armoured Division appears to be that the 2nd Infantry Division. My preference would be to move the section there, and put a WP:HATNOTE at the top of this article redirecting readers searching for the short-lived post-war formation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I am good either way (split or not split), I disagree about merging the content with the 2nd Div article. By my count, the info from this article would contribute about a 50 per cent increase in the existing content. At 60k+, that leaves little room for the article to be expanded and sourced to actually provide some divisional history compared to what it currently does.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While drafting my two paragraphs above, I had first inserted and then removed that I believed that if we needed History of the 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) we should create that article. 1st Armoured Division has an associated commanders' list; history articles and/or other splits are common in detailing the history of military formations. When SIZERULE dictates a split, we should split the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have just created two new sub-articles for the OOBs and GOCs, and removed about the same about bytes that the info from this article would add. Just to clarify then, we have consensus to move the 2nd Arm Div's Cold War stuff over to the 2nd Inf Div article?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like that's developing. At any rate, there's also definitely getting consensus that the other information doesn't really belong in this article. Hog Farm Bacon 15:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, with that said, in the last 24 hours I have created two new sub articles for the 2nd Div to make some space: a GOC list and an OOB list. I have just pulled all Cold War related info from this article and slotted it into the 2nd Div article and the GOC list. This article is cleansed! I have now, as a byproduct, developed a keen interest in the 2nd Div history... damnit guys n' gals!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting now, looks good. Hog Farm Bacon 19:48, 19 October 2020 (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 Eddie891 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Powick Bridge[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk)

Battle of Powick Bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Battle of Powick Bridge was, of itself, a minor affair. Both sides had in the region of 1,000 mounted soldiers, a mix of cavalry and dragoons. A detachment of the Parliamentarian field army had been sent to try and secure a Royalist silver convoy, which Prince Rupert had been sent to protect. The Parliamentarians bungled across Rupert's troops, who themselves were resting in a field without their armour. There is some disagreement about whether Rupert had set much a guard, but he had the better of the ground: the Parliamentarians were funnelled into a narrow lane. Rupert dispensed with the more common tactic at the time of using cavalry as a mobile firing platform, and instead "charged" his men at the opponents, breaking all but one troop. The skirmish was soon won by Rupert's Royalists, and Rupert's reputation as a cavalry commander was established.

As always, all thoughts, comments and criticisms are welcome. Harrias talk 12:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

All images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 22:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass[edit]

  • There isn't consistent use of location param—Manganiello is missing it
    • Cheers Buidhe, added the locations for Manganiello. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources seem to meet minimum standard for reliability.
  • No sources checked as I do not have access to these books. (t · c) buidhe 22:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed[edit]

This article is in great shape, I only have a few minor comments:

Build-up of the First English Civil War

  • many historians believe these events made civil war inevitable. this is cited to Gaunt; I just want to make sure he is saying "many historians" here and there aren't supposed to be more cites here for other historians?
    • Indeed, Gaunt refers to many historians. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • he fielded between a quarter and half as many men as Essex to give some context, if the sources allow, suggest indicating the size of Essex's field army.
  • ...Royalist regiments being raised in the Wales... delete the

Prelude

  • While they were still some distance away it is not clear to me if the they here is Royalist or Parliamentarians.
    • Changed to "While Essex was still some distance away, he received intelligence.." Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • towards Worcester, to prevent the convoy don't think that comma should be there.

Aftermath

  • Their relation of the battle... not crazy on this phrasing. How about "Their account of the battle..."
    • Yeah, that works better, not sure why I didn't use that originally! Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zawed, responses above. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good, happy to support this now. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

I'll take a look at this soon. Hog Farm Bacon 16:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this at GA, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's not much for me to pick on in the second round.

Lead
  • Consider adding the date when Byron entered Worcester, for a little context.
Sir John Byron's convoy
  • Link cavalry here, especialy since the distinction between cavalry and dragoons is made in this article.
  • Link Oxford
Battle
  • "Brooks suggests that they had received intelligence that Byron was preparing to leave" - First mention of Brooks. Who is he?
Infobox
  • You give Royalist strength at 1,000, but it looks like they had a bit more: 160 with Byron, and then another 1,000 with Rupert.
    • Byron's men weren't involved in the skirmish, only Rupert's 1,000. Harrias (he/him) • talk 05:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, very tidy little article. Hog Farm Bacon 00:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Hog Farm, replies above. Harrias (he/him) • talk 05:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • I'm not sure that 1,000 men a side counts as a "minor skirmish".
    • Probably a bit POV-y too. Trimmed. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where he requested assistance" suggests that he requested assistance from Worcester, which may well be the case. Or do you mean 'from where he requested assistance'?
  • Link "convoy".
  • "Both forces consisted of" "Both forces" → 'Each force'.
  • "alerted Rupert". Alerted Rupert, or alerted his scouts?
    • Actually, I need to change this slightly to reflect the uncertainty I later explain. Will think on this. Harrias (he/him) • talk 05:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tweaked this to "..approaching alerted the Royalists, who quickly formed up." How's that? Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before covering the Royalist move" I suspect that few non-military types will understand what is meant by "covering" here.
    • Hmmm, how about "shadowed", although I'm not 100% sure that conveys the right thing. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox: "Varied estimates between 30 and 150 dead or captured" Either delete "Varied estimates, or replace with 'Estimated'.
    • Changed to estimated. Harrias (he/him) • talk 05:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Location: Does "Worcestershire" add anything?
  • "who he accused" 'whom'.
  • Link "treason".
  • "In anticipation of the likely conflict". Maybe "the" → 'a'?
  • I believe that the semi colon in that sentence should be a comma.
  • "which had not been used since the mid-sixteenth century". This required me to do mental arithmetic; why not say 'over a century', or 'nearly a century', or 'a century' and spare a reader the effort?
    • Changed to "almost a century". Harrias (he/him) • talk 05:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite the manoeuvrings between the King and Parliament". What does this mean? (The physical manoeuvrings of their armies? If not, what?)
Which to me reinforces my qualms. "Despite the manoeuvrings between the King and Parliament, there remained an illusion that the two sides were still governing the country together." IMO the two halves of this sentence do not fit well together, but we can thrash it out at FAC.
  • "in between the King and London". Optional: delete "in".
  • "where he hoped to assemble the Royalist regiments". "assemble"? Do you mean something like 'join with', or 'gain the reinforcement of'?
    • "where he hoped to be reinforced by the Royalist regiments being raised in Wales"? Harrias (he/him) • talk 05:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the north- and south-west of England" "north-" If you mean north-west - and I am unsure if you do - I suggest you use that instead. (Or is it a typo?)
    • Changed to "north-west and south-west", though it sounds horrible to me. Harrias (he/him) • talk 05:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Gog the Mild, replied to most, still pondering a couple. Harrias (he/him) • talk 05:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the face of". Possibly 'by'?
    • But why use one word, when I can use four? Changed. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while the city was also surrounded by agricultural land". I can't work out which "city" you are referring to. And is this so unusual for cities of the time as to be worthy of mention?
    • Worcester. I know what you mean, but Gaunt made a big deal about it. Will consider rephrasing or removing. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and instead withdrew to the south". Instead of what?
    • Instead of attacking it, but it is superfluous, so I removed it. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two miles (3.2 km)". Personally I would round that to '3 km'.
  • What is "ostensibly" trying to suggest?
    • Ummm, I don't really know, but it falls foul of MOS:ALLEGED anyway, so I've removed it. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "General of Horse" - why the upper cases?
  • "Byron had been reinforced by Prince Rupert". Do we know, even roughly, when this happened?
    • Found it, and added. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Dragoons were mounted infantry, armed with muskets". You got a solid source for that? I have one which states that at this period dragoons were simply infantry, mounted to facilitate operational mobility and included pikemen.
    • @Gog the Mild: Yeah, pretty robust sources: the one in the article, Roberts, Keith; Tincey, John (2001). Edgehill 1642: The First Battle of the English Civil War. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1-85532-991-3. states "The other type of soldier was the Dragoon, a musketeer mounted on a cheap horse." In his solo book, Tincey, John (1990). Soldiers of the English Civil War (2): Cavalry. Oxford: Osprey. ISBN 0-85045-940-0. Tincey says that "The pike-armed dragoon was never adopted in England". In Gaunt, Peter (2019) [2014]. The English Civil War: A Military History. London: Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-3501-4351-7.: "dragoons – troops who were mounted but who, having taken up forward positions, generally dismounted and fought on foot as musketeers". Wanklyn, Malcolm; Jones, Frank (2014) [2005]. A Military History of the English Civil War: 1642–1649. Abingdon: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-582-77281-6. also discusses them as exclusively musketeers, detailing what specific type of muskets they used. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.
  • "Parliamentarians had ten troops of cavalry and five companies of dragoons". Unless you provide numbers, this approaches pointlessness.
Nudge
Okay, had a crack at this. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "differed quite significantly" Delete "quite". Consider deleting "significantly".
  • "the Dutch Republic which had been the preeminent force at the start of the Thirty Years' War". True, but 1. As the Dutch were barely involved in the 30YW it is a bit misleading. 2. "had been the preeminent force at the start of the Thirty Years' War" ie 1618. That was 24 years ago and the "had been" wording suggests that at some time during the war this ceased to be the case.
    • I could remove it, but I think it provides useful context as to why they adopted and valued those tactics. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting removing - I agree with your reasoning. But maybe tweak the phrasing?
Something like "..which was the preeminent force in the early 17th century.."? Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good.
Done. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while in defence the cavalry remained stationary" → 'while in defence the cavalry initially remained stationary'.
  • "attacked on the charge". Maybe "on" → 'at'?
Nudge
I'm not 100% convinced that this is an improvement, but nor does it look to make it worse, so sure. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were already in amongst" 1. For reasons which are beyond me, Americans don't like "amongst", suggest → 'among'. 2. Consider deleting "in".
  • Note a: purely a suggestion; in Battle of Dunbar (1650) I went with "They would advance in a tight formation, with their riders' legs interlocked, at no faster than a trot – in order to maintain formation" which maybe conveys the idea better?
    • I don't have a source which goes into that much detail though. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drat! OK.
  • "Essex's Lifeguard was a cavalry troop of cuirassiers". In what why did these "cuirassiers" differ from your generic description of cavalry above. And if they didn't, why mention it?
    • They were more heavily armoured; do you feel this is worth noting? Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your call. Given their peripheral role I would be minded not to; but you go with something like "Essex's Lifeguard was a cavalry troop commanded by Sir Philip Stapleton. They were considered the most senior cavalry troop in the Parliamentarian army, well armoured and mounted, and were responsible for guarding Essex."
Suits me. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the most senior cavalry troop" Americans are liable to take this to mean that the troopers were the oldest.
    • Changed to "most elite". Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "drawn up into open order in the meadow" Is this what the source says? Would they not draw up (whatever that means - hint) in close order?
    • It is what the source says. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they were faced with point-blank carbine fire from the dragoons". You said earlier that dragoons used muskets and that cavalry had carbines.
    • Awkward. Changed to "gunfire". Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "allowing the Royalist cavalry time to prepare." Prepare what, over and above what you have already mentioned.
    • Rephrased to "giving the Royalist cavalry time extra time to prepare."
  • "Sandys' troop were routed". If "troop" is singular then "were" → 'was'.
    • British English allows collective nouns to be either singular or plural, no? Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "broke the Lifeguard, some of whom were carried away in the flight" I see the two parts of this as contradictory. "some of whom were carried away in the flight" suggests unwillingly; while "broke the Lifeguard" is an unequivocal statement that they fled.
    • Tweaked to "which was carried away in the flight", not sure where I got the "some of" from. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "desertions, drownings and prisoners are taken into account". This is the first time you have mentioned any of this.
    • That's about all there is on it to be honest; there is a passing mention in one of the sources (I can't find which one at the moment) about the fleeing Parliamentarians riding into the river and drowning, but that's it. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Then mention desertions and drownings earlier - you could almost cut and paste your wording above. It sits ill being suddenly brought up in the summary.
In fact, I can't find anything else on this in my books. I have changed the wording to hopefully soften it slightly. Will keep digging, I swear I read more about it somewhere... Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like one of my source reviews!
  • "In the event, the two armies met inconclusively at the Battle of Edgehill" on ... ?
  • "The Puritan preacher Hugh Peter gave a sermon referring to the two battles" is it known when? And, possibly, where?
    • Added a little more detail on this. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that's your lot. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Gog the Mild, I think I've responded to each now, a couple with questions. Let me know your thoughts. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a couple of Nudges above which you may have missed and responses to a couple of your queries. Nearly there I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That all looks good. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2020 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Yugoslav torpedo boat T2[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Yugoslav torpedo boat T2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is the last of the dinky little Austro-Hungarian then Yugoslav 250t-class torpedo boats to land here for review. Her seven sisters are already FA or A-Class, so hopefully the preceding reviews have ironed out most of the wrinkles in this class. Had an interesting WWI, but didn't make it to WWII, so a little shorter than the articles on her sisters. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

I'll review this soon. Hog Farm Bacon 20:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems like the lead ought to include when it first entered Austro-Hungarian service
Sure, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to inadequate funding, 77 T and the rest of the 250t class were essentially coastal vessels, despite the original intention that they would be used for "high seas" operations" - I'm assuming the implication is that because of funding issues, these had to be built lighter than intended, and couldn't handle the stouter conditions in the open seas. I feel like if the source allows directly stating, that the practical cause of why they were restricted to coastal service should be spelled out.
Unfortunately, O'Hara, Worth and Dickson aren't explicit in this respect, only saying "New "high seas" turbine boats were designed in 1910, but because of chronic underfunding, these 250-ton boats were more coastal than high-seas vessels". I'm not sure what I can add without engaging in OR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering if maybe the characteristics in the infobox should be qualified with (as built), since the addition of the machine gun isn't in there.
The standard for ship infoboxes is "as built". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the outbreak of World War I, 77 T was part of the 1st Torpedo Group of the 3rd Torpedo Craft Division of the Austro-Hungarian 1st Torpedo Craft Flotilla" - Go ahead and provide the year, there's a sadly large number of people who don't know when WWI standard.
OK, scary, but ok. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otranto Barrage is overlinked
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 23 September 1917, 77 T and another 250t-class boat were laying a minefield off Grado in the northern Adriatic when they had a brief encounter with a Royal Italian Navy (Italian: Regia Marina) MAS motor torpedo boat" - What exactly happened? Any shots fired? Is the MAS boat's name known?
Unfortunately no other details are available on this incident, Cernuschi and O'Hara's work is in the form of a table with incidents and brief details, but no more. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "77 T survived the war intact." - Go ahead and specify when the war ended.
Ok, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where was she stationed between the Szent Istvan incident and war's end? It just skips from the dreadnought being sunk in the middle of the ocean to 77 T back in Austria in 1920.
Presumably in Pola, where the A-H navy holed up until the end of the war. Added a sentence about the fact that the sinking of Szent Istvan really brought ops in the Adriatic to a halt. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, link Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes? It's a defunct nation not too well-known under that name
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to link Dalmatia twice.
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The ships and crews made a very good impression while visiting Malta" - To the Maltese, or someone else? Who in particular?
Presumably the British, the source is the British diplomatic diary. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the Yugoslavs make an alterations?
None in sources, they tended to keep Austro-Hungarian guns etc, even the later Yugoslav-built ships used Škoda guns, probably because they were familiar with them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Willing to discuss any of these, and retract if need be. Hog Farm Bacon 19:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done I reckon, Hog Farm. See what you think of my responses. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle[edit]

The last of the Austro-to-Yugoslav torpedo boats through A-class review? My goodness PM, how long have you waited for this day :) ? My comments:

  • this force included six of the eight T-group torpedo boats, so it is possible that one of these was 77 T. Does Halpern actually point out the vagueness of 77 T's potential participation in the battle? If not this is an OR violation engaging in speculation.
    This is a good point. The reader can drawn their own conclusions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this article, Halpern gives the date of 77T's 1916 raid on the Otranto Barrage as 31 May/1 June. O'Hara concurs with this assessment and gives the name of the drifter sunk (here). This snippet of Warship International gives the date as 31 March/1 April, and also says that the report of one drifter sunk was an Austro-Hungarian claim that was not reflected in British sources. Do you know what the reason may be for this discrepancy?
    Well, the Warship article is a bit old, and Lawrence Sondhaus (2017) also says it was 31 May/1 June and that one drifter was sunk [18]. That is enough for me. Do you think I need to add Sondhaus? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it seems the academic consensus is on 31 May/1 June. Whichever additional source can support that the drifter's name is Beneficient will do.
  • under the terms of the previous year's Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye by which rump Austria officially ended World War I. This could be rephrased, as it gives the impression that Austria single-handedly ended the war with its signing of the peace treaty. Perhaps "by which rump Austria officially ended its participation in World War I"?
    Tweaked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source says 77T was given to the Kingdom of Serbs et. al. for "police duties". I've seen the term "police duties" mentioned in other discussions of the distribution of Central Power ships to European countries in the post-war settlements. Does this mean they were to fulfill maritime patrol and custom duties as opposed to purely military ones? If this is a meaningful distinction, it should be added with the source to the article.
    Given the age of the source, and the fact that I have not seen "police duties" used anywhere else with respect to these boats, I don't think so. In 1920, the boats hadn't been transferred and the Yugoslav navy hadn't even been established. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Interwar period" subsection, the acronym for the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, KSCS, seems superfluous since its never used again and thus should probably be excised. Also, the acronym introduced for the Yugoslav Navy is KM, but then the text refers to it as both the KM and the KJRM. This should be resolved for consistency.
    Both fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not clear if T2 was one of the torpedo boats involved. Is this an observation Jarman makes directly? Similar to my first comment.
    Removed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1932, the British naval attaché reported that Yugoslav ships engaged in few exercises, manoeuvres or gunnery training due to reduced budgets. I see why this was included, but this is a very generic statement about the navy as a whole and not about T2.
    Yes, but it goes to the lack of info available about the activities of the boat at the time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-Indy beetle (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Indy beetle, thanks for looking at this, I think I've got them all, but have a query about one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the above responses, supporting. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source reviews[edit]

  • Image review: pass, no issues; only image is freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 09:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review—pass
    • Sources look to meet minimum standard for reliability.
    • Source check: Halpern 2015, p. 279 partly supports the content, I'll assume that the rest of it is in the other source (which I do not have access to). Did not check other sources as I do not have access to them.
I have a scan of the relevant page of Halpern 1987 and can provide it for verification, and also have copies of the books or scans of the other sources if needed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to this[19], the Jarman books were published by Cambridge Archive Editions, an imprint of Cambridge University Press[20]. The article calls the publisher Archives Edition. Typo? (t · c) buidhe 09:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is what Worldcat says, but adjusted to reflect the above. Thanks for these reviews, buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Since this is a pretty short nomination I can have a small look into it.

  • Maybe add some important information from the "Background" and the "Description and construction" sections since this lead is a pretty small without them?
Added a bit and split lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • could sail from the Austro-Hungarian Navy (German: kaiserliche und königliche Kriegsmarine) Unlink German and where's the Hungerian translation?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Austro-Hungarian Navy.
It is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino (STT) of Triest --> "Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino (STT) of the city Triest"?
I think people can hover over the city link. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ehm, I couldn't see whether or not Triest is a city or not by hovering it.
When I hover over it I get "Trieste is a city and a seaport in northeastern Italy". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sadly cannot if I use Opera but if I use Firefox or Google Chrome then it works but I still believe we should introduce it since you cannot hover a physical copy. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is IAW MOS:LINKCLARITY. Not sure what the reference to MOS:EGG is about. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The T-group designation signified that they were built at Triest What's this T-group?
Clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They carried 18 tonnes (17.7 long tons) of coal and 24 tonnes (23.6 long tons) of fuel oil Could you reduce "tonnes" to just the unit's abbreviation "t"?
abbr=on done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 980 nautical miles (1,810 km; 1,130 mi) at 16 knots (30 km/h; 18 mph) Second time knots is linked.
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now are km/h and mph linked same with the sentence "to a top speed of 28 kn (52 km/h; 32 mph)".
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • but this was changed to two guns and four torpedo tubes before Still the same type 66 mm guns?
Clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • order to standardise the armament with the following F-group What's the F-group and can you link it?
It is explained in the 250t-class article, but I have clarified a bit earlier. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a lot of "77 T"s is it possible to reduce them to she, it or "the boat"?
Reduced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • a permanent patrol of the Albanian coastline Link Albanian to the back-then-Albania article.
linked to Principality of Albania. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orjen sank the drifter Beneficient, but once the alarm Which nationality was Beneficient?
British, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • brief encounter with a Royal Italian Navy (Italian: Regia Marina) Unlink Italian.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • By 1918, the Allies had strengthened their ongoing DUB link here.
No, it goes to Allies of WWI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it is look at this sentence "raided the Otranto Barrage, an Allied naval blockade of the Strait of Otranto" a couple of sentences above.
Ah, couldn't see it for looking. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Austro-Hungarian Navy, Konteradmiral Miklós Horthy What's a Konteradmiral?
There is a link for it and it is Englishish, I don't think we need to provide a translation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the night of 8 June 7/8 or 8/9 June?
Clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3:15 am vs 03:15 - one should be standardised.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • two Italian MAS boats, MAS 15 and MAS 21 Link for both ships?
I'm not sure every MAS boat is notable given they were 20-30t. MAS 15 maybe. I'll leave that to others. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • smoke from the Austrian ships You mean Austrian-Hungarian or were these ships specific of the Austria part?
Good pick up. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Austro-Hungarian Empire sued for peace in November 1918 I don't know if it's me but this sounds a little bit odd.
Nations sue for peace. It's a thing. Google it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that, it's just the article before and the word "Empire" after Austro-Hungary which makes it a little bit odd to me but again could me? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't odd, CPA-5. I could have gone with "Austria-Hungary sued for peace in November 1918" but there is no substantive difference and both are correct. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again it could me so I'm not complaining. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the navy was formed, she and --> "When the Navy was formed, she and"?
OK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found this issue in these sentences too: "During the interwar period, T7 and the rest of the navy were involved" and "conducted off the Dalmatian coast, involving the majority of the navy".
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the submarines Hrabri and Nebojša, on a cruise to Malta Maybe tell the readers whether or not you are referring to the island of Malta or the Crown colony?
They were one and the same as the whole island was the colony, but clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically it was an archipelago and the biggest island is also called Malta. But I know what you mean.
I don't think the distinction is enough to worry about, but now it says Crown Colony of Malta. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1939, T2 was scrapped Why was she scrapped?
Presumably worn out, in the usual course of events. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "full load" and "shafts" in the infobox.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you also tell me which sisters are they in the infobox's image?
81 T Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also small errors in the "References".
If you mean the deprecated ampersand field, fixed. Anything else? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done, CPA-5. Thanks for taking a look, and great to see you back reviewing. See if my responses have addressed your comments. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey PM, most are addressed and I have replied to your comments. Am happy to be back but since this, a short one I can have a review; nominations with more than 40,000 bytes are a little bit too long for me since I don't have that much of time. Anyway that's it I believe. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All done, CPA-5. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgot a comment, sorry for that. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think they all are addressed so there is no reason to not support it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2020 (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) 08:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Hitler's prophecy[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Buidhe (talk)

Hitler's prophecy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article is about the most notorious phrase from Hitler's speeches: "If international finance Jewry inside and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, the result will be not the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe." This threat/prophecy was repeated in speeches, printed on posters and in newspapers, and cited as a reason why Germans ought to have known what was going on. I'd like to thank Ian Rose for the GA review and Tenryuu for the copyedit. (t · c) buidhe 19:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

I'm surprised that there have been no takers for this review so far. I'll kick things off with the following comments:

  • Please provide an English translation of the lead image
    • Moved out of note
  • "leading to the systematic mass murder of Jews" - this began with the invasion of Poland
    • Changed to "accelerating"
  • The background section should discuss the intensification of the anti-Jewish agenda from the Nazi seizure of power - regardless of what Hitler did or didn't say, Jews were all but marginalised from most of German public life by 1939 with many having been murdered, injured or bankrupted due to the regime.
    • Added some background info
  • The 'Timing of the war' section seems out of place
    • Moved the material elsewhere
  • "Hitler was willing to authorize harsher measures against Jews in Germany because he knew of the mass shootings of Jews in the occupied Soviet Union" - this reads oddly given that he'd ordered them.
    • The source states, "In the course of the discussion Hitler also told Goebbels that his prophecy of 30 January 1939 that a new world war would end in the ‘annihilation’ of the European Jews was now becoming true during these weeks and months with a certainty that was almost uncanny. For ‘the Jews in the East must pay the bill; in Germany they have already paid part of it and in the future they will have to pay more.’ This statement makes it clear that, under the impression of the mass murder in the occupied eastern territories, Hitler was now prepared to take a tougher line with the Jews in Germany itself. His ‘global war against the Jews’ was not simply a propaganda fantasy; it was increasingly becoming reality." I added some info from an earlier page number where it says that Hitler issued orders relating to shooting Jews.
  • I'd suggest making it clearer in the 'Hitler's role in the Holocaust' section that there's consensus among historians that Hitler ordered the Holocaust and monitored its implementation, but did not issue written directives on the topic.
    • Added
  • "After the war, Germans claimed ignorance of the Nazi regime's crime" - surely this should be "many Germans" or similar given that there were different views?
    • Done
  • Did the 'prophecy' have any impact on the domestic opposition and resistance to Hitler? Evans (for instance) stresses through his trilogy on Nazi Germany that the regime was not genuinely popular with the public for most of its existence, and presumably anti-Nazi Germans were horrified by it. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • An interesting question, unfortunately I was unable to find any answer in reliable sources. Thanks very much for your review. (t · c) buidhe 11:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now all addressed. It's good to see such a comprehensive and broad-ranging article on this important topic. Nick-D (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias (abstain)[edit]

Okay, this is a bit of an epic, so I'll probably end up reviewing in sections, or suchlike.

  • Thanks so much for your feedback! (t · c) buidhe 22:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "According to historian Ian Kershaw, upon Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler seizure of power.." Need an 's after Hitler here.
    • Done
  • "..rather than religious confession.." Is there a suitable article to link "religious confession" to?
    • I could not find such a suitable article, so I changed it to "..rather than religion".
  • Wikilink pogrom, though this does create a slight WP:SEAOFBLUE. Not sure. You could include it in the link: Kristallnacht pogrom, though that also has problems. Either way, having no link is possibly the most problematic I think.
  • I'm unsure if "Kristallnacht" should be in a {{lang}} template per MOS:LANG: it might count as an exemption per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, but on the other hand it is italicised at the parent article.
    • I didn't italicize because most English-language RS do not.[21][22][23]
  • "A propaganda campaign conducted from November 1938 to January 1939 aimed at justifying the pogrom to the German people and blaming it on the Jews." This jarred a little to me, it felt like it was missing something more at the end. I would recommend adding "was" before "conducted", which fixes it in my head.
    • Rephrased

Speech of 30 January 1939

  • "In February, another German.." I assume we don't know who?
    • All we know is that it was published in Sopade's newspaper (presumably anonymously) by "a horrified German bystander", in Koonz' words.

Allusions

  • I'm not convinced that "allusions" is the right title for this section. Per wikt:allusion: "an indirect reference; a hint; a reference to something supposed to be known, but not explicitly mentioned". Some of the references listed here are clearly direct references, not indirect ones. I appreciate that "References" can't be used as a title, but nor do I think we can use "Allusions". I wish I had an alternative suggestion though...
    • I actually changed it to "References", since it can't be confused with an actual references section
  • "..Warsaw Ghetto diarist Chaim Kaplan writing.." Avoid this noun plus -ing contruction.
    • Fixed
  • "..displayed promiently.." Typo.
    • Fixed
  • "In mid-September, Hitler made the decision to deport German Jews into the occupied Soviet Union, which historians view as related to the posters." To be clear, do those historians suggest that Hitler made the decision at least partly because of the posters?
    • Not exactly, it's more that they emphasize the temporal proximity which is not a coincidence. I've altered the text to be more clear.

Reviewed to the end of the Invasion of the Soviet Union sub-section. Good stuff, but heavy reading. Will come back to this later. Harrias talk 14:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note: I came back intending to continue this review this evening, but I'm not going to be able to do much detail stuff. However, just starting to read through "The Jews are Guilty" section affirmed something I'd already been thinking: the article is far too quote heavy, both from the source material and from third-party commentary. To get an idea of scale, as an arbitrary number, I would suggest that perhaps a quarter of it needs cutting back and para-phrasing more into a summary analysis. Harrias talk 20:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with this, but the question is exactly which quotes can go and which are necessary. I'll go through the article again with a view to reducing where possible. (t · c) buidhe 22:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now done... I was able to remove three blockquotes and a bunch of other quotes. (t · c) buidhe 14:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More

  • The blockquote at the start of the War against the United States section, is that quoting Hitler (referring to himself in the third-person?) or someone else?
    • Yes, it is a quote from Hitler. Edited to be more explicit.
  • I believe that we adopt our own MOS, even over the formatting used in article titles, so "The Coming End — the Führer's Prophecy" should take an endash, rather than an emdash.
    • Done
  • "..is dispelled by dehumanizing Jews by describing them as a "bacillus"." What does "bacillus" mean? Without knowing that, this quote is pretty meaningless. Either explain it, or get rid of it, and simply say that he dehumanized them.
    • Linked bacillus, a type of bacteria. None of the sources explain what is a bacillus.

Reviewed to the end of the section. Sorry, I'm finding this hard going. I find the article excessively detailed, but that be because it isn't a particular area of interest of mine, rather than a problem with the actual article. Will look to continue into the Analysis section ASAP. Harrias talk 10:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have worked my through the rest of the article, and there is nothing major remaining. As I mentioned above, I found the article hard work, partly due to the subject matter. In places I found some of the information presented quite tangential to the prophecy and speech itself, but not since university have I read much on political theory and philosophy, which this article slips into at times, so it might just be that at play. Honestly, I do wonder if the whole article could bear to be trimmed to help make it more accessible to the layperson such as myself, but I am aware that it is important not to omit any of the varying views, of which there are clearly many. Overall, this is good work in a difficult area, so well done. I note that this already has two supports, and Hog Farm will likely provide a third. With that in mind, I will not be explicitly supporting the promotion, but I certainly do not oppose it: my main analysis after reading this is that I don't feel I know or understand the topic and genre well enough to do so. I hope that you don't take this amiss. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks so much for your comments. I will try to go through again and get rid of anything that isn't closely related. (t · c) buidhe 13:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

Will get to this soon. Hog Farm Bacon 02:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "looting of Jewish-owned stores and residences, and assaults on Jews which (according to official figures) caused 91 deaths." - I'm not sure that I trust official Nazi figures on stuff like this. What do mainstream historians estimate for deaths?
    • I don't think there's any other accepted estimate for those killed during the event. Longerich says, "It is not known how many died from this violence; the official number of dead was given as 91." Many historians use the official estimate without comment.[24][25][26][27]
  • " "how important the expansion of our people’s living space (Lebensraum) was in order permanently to secure their food supplies"" - Is Lebensraum in the original quote? I thought the tendency for doing quotes was to put additions in square brackets.
    • It's not in the source, so I ended up linking it as [[Lebensraum|living space]]
  • "Although Hitler rarely repeated himself," - Maybe this is just me, but I almost feel like we need a second source in addition to Mommsen
    • Removed, other sources actually say that he did repeat himself sometimes.
  • "and displayed prominently in Berlin[89] and "in every town and village"" - Not sure what the direct quotation of "in every town and village" adds here. I think the subject of the article means that more direct quotations than usual is okay, but there's still a little overkill in a few places with these
    • Removed
  • "According to the Security Service (SD), the article "found a strong echo" among Germans, although some churchgoers were critical of it" - This could use the opinion of a mainstream historian, as anything the SD said is probably open to question.
    • These SD reports are the main source that historians use to evaluate German public opinion (eg this Yale UP book which focuses on them[28]); there's not much else to go on. In this case, Kershaw saw fit to mention it and he doesn't offer a separate opinion of his own.
  • "Goebbels, who had a doctorate from the University of Heidelberg, presented the narrative to German elites in a speech at Friedrich-Wilhelm University in Berlin on 1 December" - Goebbels doctorate almost feels like an excess detail, unless it can be proved to be relevant.
    • Removed
  • "Hitler implied that even if the war was lost, his prophecy would be fulfilled" - Unclear if this is part of the statement, or if this is part of the instructions to Wagner
    • Clarified that it is part of the statement
  • "Koonz writes that in his 1939 speech, "Hitler posed as the sole moral arbiter of his Volk at war on two fronts: racial and geopolitical"" - What's Volk?
  • " The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has ruled that predicting genocide can, under certain circumstances, be considered incitement to genocide" - This postdates the Holocaust by 50 years. Convince me this can be strongly tied to the prior events. ACW scholars don't define Andersonville Prison by the Geneva Conventions.
    • That's true. However, the criminalization of incitement to genocide in international law dates to Streicher and the next prosecutions didn't occur until Rwanda. I think it is worth mentioning in light of the comparisons made with other statements.

Address these, and I'm ready to support for A-Class. For a future FAC, I'd recommend trimming down a few more of the direct quotes. Hog Farm Bacon 19:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments. I believe I've addressed everything. (t · c) buidhe 11:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Supporting, although I will second what Harrias said. This is probably the densest non-technical article I've ever read here. I would likely abstain at a FAC. Hog Farm Bacon 13:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

Doing shortly Aza24 (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spot checks not done
  • Peter Longerich has a link
    • All the authors are linked on their first work but not subsequent ones to avoid sea of blue.
  • I don't think this is required but you may want to consider adding page number ranges for all the book chapters. At the moment only half have them, the ones that don't are: Bartrop, Bergen, Bytwerk and Musolff
    • I added page numbers for the chapters wherever I could find them. But in some cases I couldn't.
  • What is the chapter for Bartrop? Perhaps this just belongs in the normal books section?
    • Moved
  • You're missing the editors for Bergen, they're listed here
    • Added
  • Israel Charny has a link, as does Jeffrey Herf
  • Ralf Blank is the editor for the Jersak ref, listed here
    • Added
  • If you're linking journals then The Historical Journal, Quarterly Journal of Speech and History & Memory have links
    • Linked
  • Besides these things formatting looks great, consistent linking and use of ISBNS/indentifiers
  • All sources are scholarly ones, published by historians. The only ref that stands out is 192 but it is an interview with a historian so no issues there
    • Thanks for your review! (t · c) buidhe 04:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Everything looks good now, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ian[edit]

Hi, I reviewed and copyedited at GAN, treating it in much the same way I would an ACR, understanding it would go through here too. So having reviewed changes since then, and tweaked the copy here and there, I'm happy to support. N.B. I note Hog Farm's concerns with the level of quotation, and I did in fact highlight at GAN that this might come up at subsequent reviews, but OTOH I think this subject matter perhaps benefits from a higher level of direct quotation from sources than might be necessary in other articles -- in any case there's certainly less in the way of quotation than when I first read it during the GAN.

Image review -- I was satisfied with image licensing at GAN and can't see any new pictures added since then.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I spotchecked several references at GAN as was satisfied with the result. Ian Rose (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate all your help with the article! (t · c) buidhe 09:05, 11 October 2020 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

HMS Pearl (1762)[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Ykraps (talk)

HMS Pearl (1762) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...Hoping to get to FAC eventually and this is the next logical step. I have expanded the article significantly since it achieved GA in May 2018. There was a peer review in August Wikipedia:Peer_review/HMS_Pearl_(1762)/archive1. The article is about a Royal Navy frigate from the age of sail. She fought in the American and French Revolutionary Wars, although her part in the latter was less interesting, mainly confined to the more mundane frigate duties. Relegated to harbour roles in 1804, she was eventually sold in 1832. Ykraps (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hog Farm[edit]

Will get to this over the next few days. Hog Farm Bacon 19:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "At the end of the war in 1782, Pearl returned to England" - but the Treaty of Paris wasn't signed until 1783, and the general consensus of RS that I've seen is that the war didn't end until 1783, so the 1782 date is misleading here
    Officially the war ended with the ratification of the Treaty of Paris but Britain realised America was lost when Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown and had already begun to withdraw. As I can't think of a succinct way to put this, I've removed for now.--Ykraps (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was force to put into Sierra Leone" - I'm assuming you mean forced, not force?
    Of course. Thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give Elphinstone's rank
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bold Prothee in the lead, as it was a valid alternate name
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will get to more of this later. Hog Farm Bacon 21:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duplinks
  • There's a bunch of these, according to the duplink finder tool: HMS Roebuck, New York City, fitted-out (piped linked as refitted), cutting out, and the Minerve.
    Done, I think. Where do I find the tool to check?
American Revolutionary War
  • What's Hamond's rank?
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What type of ship was Batchelor?
    Not recorded, unfortunately.--Ykraps (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and on 6 July 1777" - Drop the year, since it's already been established it's in 1777
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " burned the Continental schooner Mosquito" - Link Continental to Continental Navy
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The American vessel of six guns and four swivels, was moored" - Drop the comma
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in the frigate, Delaware, came" - I don't think the commas are necessary
    Removed.--Ykraps (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Assault on Philadelphia
  • What's Howe's rank?
    Added.--Ykraps (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 22 September, Pearl, Roebuck, Liverpool, HMS Augusta, forced a passage in order to support an attack on Red Bank by British troops - Shouldn't there be an "and" in the list somewhere?
    Added.--Ykraps (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Operations in the West Indies
  • What's Hotham's rank?
    Added.--Ykraps (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "escorted by a small squadron comprising two 64-gun and three 50-gun ships of the line, a bomb vessel, and two frigates arrived at Barbados" - I think there should be a comma after frigates, to fully set of the appositive.
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pearl encountered the 28-gun Santa Monica off the Azores" - Mention that Santa Monica was a Spanish vessel here, not in the next sentence
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pearl took part in an attack on a convoy from Caracas on 8 January 1780[5] comprising 22 ships, including seven Spanish men of war, and the entire convoy was taken." - Maybe it's just me, but to me, Pearl took part in an attack on a Spanish convoy comprising 22 ships, including seven men of war, on 8 January 1780; the entire convoy was taken. With the links and citations in there, of course.
    Good suggestion. Done with one minor change.--Ykraps (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A proportion of the captured ships " - I'm not convinced proportion is the correct word here. Portion, or some such word, would be better.
    Agreed. Done.--Ykraps (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use both Rear-admiral and Rear-Admiral. Be consistent with the capitalization.
    Changed to Rear-Admiral. --Ykraps (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Long Island
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna take a break here. Hog Farm Bacon 22:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterranean service and the outbreak of war
  • "Scocvola,in October" - Missing a space in here
    Added.--Ykraps (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Both off the coast of Antigua - This is a sentence fragment, combine with the preceeding sentence
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In January 1800, she took a Spanish brig" - Might want to indicate why the British were fighting Spanish, as at last mention, only the French are at war with the British
    Added.--Ykraps (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and destroyed, a large Genoese polacca of 14 guns" - Drop the comma
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " two Spanish setees and a Xebec" - I'm not convinced that xebec should be capitalized
    Lower-cased.--Ykraps (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on 31 August 1800 and destroyed a further two" - Already established that we're in 1800, not need to repeat the year
    Removed.--Ykraps (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Nice
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the aid of the 18-gun sloop, Lutine, the 8-gun bomb vessel, Strombolo, and the 6-gun tender, Alexander" - I don't think you need the commas between the ship types and the ship names, it just confuses the list
    Removed.--Ykraps (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandria
  • What's Elphinstone's rank?
    Added.--Ykraps (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Siege of Porto Ferrajo
  • Give Warren's rank
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pearl was in John Borlase Warren's squadron when it was called upon to relieve the British garrison at Porto Ferrajo; under siege since the beginning of May 1801" - Put the when here, instead of the next sentence, to provide the necessary context for "since the beginning of May 1801" without having to read further to understand
    Not entirely sure what you are asking here. Can you expand a bit?
    @Ykraps: - Directly state when it was called upon to relive the garrison. "since the beginning of May 1801" is highly dependent for significance for when this is happening, and it's better to state it outright here, instead of stating when Pearl got involved in this little scrap a few sentences later. Hog Farm Bacon 21:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We may be at cross purposes here. The beginning of May was when the siege began. Pearl became involved on 1 August as stated in the next sentence. I could say, "Pearl was in Commodore John Borlase Warren's squadron when, on 1 August, it was called upon to relieve the British garrison at Porto Ferrajo; under siege since the beginning of May 1801". Is that what you are suggesting?--Ykraps (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ykraps: - Yes. Hog Farm Bacon 22:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm: Done.--Ykraps (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italicize Généreux
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Elba
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fate
  • Link or gloss the meaning of "in ordinary"
    Linked.--Ykraps (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that's my run through the prose. Willing to discuss any of these. Hog Farm Bacon 02:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. I will get to asap but I'm away at the moment and internet access is sporadic.--Ykraps (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Do you have anything more to add?--Ykraps (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport by PM[edit]

I don't have much of an idea about age of sail ships, 20th C ships are my forte, but I'll have a crack. I have some comments:

Lead
  • because the Niger-class included a name ship, it should always be italicised. The best way to do this is to use the sclass- template, ie {{sclass-|Niger|frigate|0}}
    Done - I wasn't aware of that template so thanks for that.--Ykraps (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "HMS Pearl was a Royal Navy 32-gun fifth-rate frigate of the Niger-class."
    Sort of done - It was all looking a bit WP:sea of blue so I've removed 'fifth-rate' which was probably unnecessary anyway.--Ykraps (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link ceremonial ship launching for "Launched"
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link ship commissioning for "recommissioned"
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Body
  • is there any information available on why she was ordered, her intended role or what ship she replaced? Also, any information about how many ships called Pearl had preceded her, if any?
    Not a lot, no. She was built during the Seven Year's War but by the time she was completed, the war was over. There appears to have been three Pearls before her but they weren't related in any way and I can't find a reliable source. I've opted instead to add a bit more about other ships in her class. See here [[29]]--Ykraps (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amalgamate the three paras of the Construction and armament section, each para only contains two sentences
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link keel laying for "laid down"
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • get rid of the 0 inches in the depth of hold figure by removing it from the cvt template
    Done - Although in my experience this often leads to confusion. See for example this comment from Euryalus [[30]].--Ykraps (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the piped link should be to Admiralty not the section within that article about the building itself
    Done - No idea why it should do that; the Admiralty is both the institution and the building.--Ykraps (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link main battery
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "to South Carolina, and captured the 16-gun sloop USS Lexington on 20 December."
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • what sort of ship was Batchelor?
    Hog Farm asked the same question. I'm afraid I don't know. She is only recorded as a privateer.--Ykraps (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • is "cutting out" a more common term than boarding?
    It's a more accurate term. Cutting out is a suprise boarding from boats. Boarding can also refer to a ship to ship boarding, following an engagement. I think it's quite a common term and probably more common when describing a boat action.--Ykraps (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link swivel gun and in full, jargon
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then Pearl weighed"→"then Pearl weighed anchor" jargon
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link ship grounding
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Ship's tender
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • nmi in full at first mention, unfamiliar to many
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in general, state what type of ship when mentioning a ship, ie "the sixth-rate frigate HMAS Liverpool"
    I'm sure Liverpool was a British ship :) Done (I think).--Ykraps (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "When American forces were defeated on land at the Battle of Brandywine"
    Changed to American land forces, if that's okay.--Ykraps (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "and Merlin blew up" as we already know she was a sloop
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • drop the comma from "At dawn, on 25 July 1778"
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "American frigate of 26 guns" or "26-gun American frigate" and should Industry be redlinked if it was of that size?
    Yes, I initially intended to add a link but there doesn't appear to be enough info on her for an article. Everything I could find has been put in this article. The other problem I had was what to call it. She wasn't a Continental Navy frigate so USS Industry isn't appropriate. American privateer Industry perhaps?--Ykraps (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    American privateer Industry works for me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She came up with the chase" jargon
    Changed to objective.--Ykraps (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Ship of the line
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • drop the piping for Admiral Samuel Barrington, just link Samuel Barrington
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • explain why they were attacking St Lucia
    The short answer is because there was an opportunity to do so. The sugar islands were extremely lucrative; they generated more than 50% of French and 20% of British trade. The French waived their right to claim any part of the American continent in their treaty with the 13 colonies, but retained the right to expand their empire in the West Indies, which they did with the capture of Dominica. Hotham’s arrival gave the Royal Navy superiority in those waters and although the French were too deeply entrenched on Dominica, it was felt that the capture of St Lucia was a possibility. I have made a small addition;[[31]] let me know if you want me to expand on it.--Ykraps (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You could get away with mentioning that St Lucia was a French colony. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yes, that would have been simpler. Thanks and added.--Ykraps (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Spaniard→the Spanish ship
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Man-of-war
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • consistency re: ships of the line and ships-of-the-line
    Done, I think. All hyphenated.--Ykraps (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Conanicut Island and in full
    Written in full but already linked in the 'Assualt on Philadelphia' section.--Ykraps (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • forced to strike, jargon
    Changed to capitulate. I found another occurence of this phrase in the Assualt on Philadelphia section. I have written out in full and linked to its article [[32]] but happy to change if that's insufficient.--Ykraps (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • held the lee and leaned away from their opponents, jargon
    Changed to downwind.--Ykraps (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Chesapeake Bay
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • consistency with prefixing HMS when first mentioning a ship, Iris is a glaring example of easter-egging of this type
    Done. (I think)--Ykraps (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link privateer
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • move link to brig to first mention
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Michael de Courcy
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link broadside
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "fore-topgallant" as that is the construction in the Collins dictionary, also link Topgallant sail
    Done - Didn't check the spelling, just followed the source.--Ykraps (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link carronade
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the link for Genoese seems to be Ligurian Republic
    Sources refer to these ships as Genoese but the Republic of Genoa was amalgamated with other territories to form the Ligurian Republic in Jan 1797 so the latter is probably the most appropriate link. Is your concern WP:EGG? I could see if the sentence can be rewritten but after days of looking, I still can't find it!--Ykraps (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I just mean pipe Genoese to Ligurian Republic at first mention. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That explains why I couldn't find it then. I read both articles when deciding which link was best but clearly forgot to add it. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • French setee→French settee
    Good catch. Thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • for Succès link HMS Success (1781)
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "off the west side of the island" what island? Elba?
    St Lucia. Clarified now, I think.--Ykraps (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. Completely at cross purposes here. I initially made this edit in response to your query.[[33]] Elba it is. Now corrected.--Ykraps (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link HMS Carrere (1801)
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • struck to her, jargon
    Changed to surrendered.--Ykraps (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Note 4, italicise Vertu, and place an apostrophe after Clowes
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • use |author-link for Clowes in the References, same for Benson John Lossing, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Onésime-Joachim Troude and Robert Beatson
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the pages in the citation format should have a space between p. and the page number, per the examples at H:FOOT and WP:CITE
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Nice job thus far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you're done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Thanks for taking time and effort to review this article. Sorry it's taking so long but last week I was away on holiday and this week I'm back at work, struggling to clear the backlog. I think I'm just about done now: There is still the unresolved issues of the frigate Industry (19th question in Body section) and the Ligurian Republic (38th question in Body section). Happy to take your advice on either of these. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just a couple of things noted above, and I reckon we're good to go. Great job on this article, BTW. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Thanks for your edits to the article. I think I've attended to everything else.--Ykraps (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, this looks pretty good to my untrained eye. Not a lot stood out to me: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • the infobox mentions that the ship was full rigged, but I wasn't sure if this is mentioned in the body, please check
    Added.--Ykraps (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wilkinson died from disease and was replaced by George Elphinstone: the link to Elphinestone here appears to be to someone who died in 1634, so it is probably the wrong link
    Well spotted! Untrained eye, indeed.--Ykraps (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • anchored at Bloomingdale, 6 miles (9.7 km) above New York --> north of New York?
    It's kinda north-east. Changed to upstream as I have a feeling that the measurement is along the river.--Ykraps (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good solution, thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the London Gazette has Pearl with: add italics for "London Gazette"
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In March 1825, Pearl was renamed Protheé: do we know why the ship was renamed?
    I've not been able to find anything. There was another Pearl being built at around the same time so best guess is the Admiralty wanted the name for their new vessel. No reliable source for this, however.--Ykraps (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, thanks for looking. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Porto Ferrajo however, remained in British hands until the end of the: suggest adding a comma after "Ferrajo"
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the References, some ISBNs are hyphenated and some aren't. I suggest making these consistent
    Ah yes, you mentioned that last time but I'd forgotten about it. Done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the References, suggest adding a translation for the title of the Troude work
    Done and added language too.--Ykraps (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • citations # 83 and 84 appear like they might be inconsistent in their presentation compared with others (for instance citations # 1, 2 etc)
    Reformatted.--Ykraps (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: I know how busy you are at the moment so many, many thanks for taking the time to review.--Ykraps (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all, thanks for your efforts. Added my support above, now. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • All sources are high quality.
  • Spot checks done on 43, 74, 113 - all okay.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Thank you for doing the source and image review. Is there anything else I need to action?--Ykraps (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. All good. I am curious about the London Gazette links. How did you find them? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Search the Gazette's website here [[34]]. Entering 'Pearl' in the 'search archives' box brings up this list.[[35]] You can refine your search in the pane on the left-hand side; I normally use dates from launch to a few years after breaking. Then it's just a question of trawling through them.--Ykraps (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2020 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

United States war plans (1945–1950)[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

United States war plans (1945–1950) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is a new article, one that has been on my mind for some time. Some articles referenced the war plans of this period, but there was nothing on them. Put simply, the American planners were unable to come up with anything practical, but the work done was not wasted; what was fantastic in the 1940s would ultimately become very real in the 1950s. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

Surprised that there hasn't been more interest in this article. I'd like to offer the following comments:

When the article ran on DYK, it got 12,000 views, which is an order of magnitude more than the average for a non-lead article. The hook chosen was about the nuclear attack plan. Frankly, I didn't think much of the hook; I was sure that most Americans would note that a single Trident submarine has more nuclear warheads and could cause more devastation today. There was no feedback though, so I am unsure what they thought of the article. Clearly the subject is of little interest here on MilHist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the plans called for rather dramatic Allied retreats (from the Elbe to Spain!), I'd suggest that the background section discuss the run down state of the western armies following the war.
    checkY Added a paragraph on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " These bombers were the mainstay of the strategic bomber force in the late 1940s, but were vulnerable, lacked range" - this needs to be nuanced. The B-29s suffered only modest losses against Japan and were the longest-range bombers in service at the time.
    checkY The nuance is in the text, so trimmed the caption. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the Western European Union?
    checkY Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'outcome' section could note the post-Cold War assessments of the Soviet situation in this period. As I understand it, the Soviet economy was near collapse and as a result there was little likelihood of the USSR mounting a major offensive.
    checkY Expanded on this a little. The planners always focused on capabilities rather than intentions. The state of US forces in the period might come as a shock to modern readers who grew up in an era when the US and NATO were powerful forces. The reader of the article though, is far better informed than the public at the time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. For anyone considering reviewing here, I'd highly recommend doing so as it's a very interesting article. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

Looks interesting. There's another article above this one on my reviewing list, but I'll get to it fairly soon. Hog Farm Bacon 18:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pincher
  • "from soviet-aligned Bulgaria" - Soviet-aligned
    checkY Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nonetheless, the planner assessed that there was a chance" - Maybe planners, not planner?
    checkY Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Broiler
  • "and Joint Intelligence Staff's assessment of Soviet Union's capabilities remained substantially unchanged; it could mobilize as many as 245 divisions." - This may be just a personal definition thing, but I would consider a 25 division drop (270 given in Pincher) to be a bit of a change.
    checkY Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Okinawa and Karachi (the latter here instead of in Halfmoon)
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Outcome
  • "The planner always concentrated on capabilities rather than intentions" - Again, I think planners, not planner, as many people and groups were involved in the planning.
    checkY Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very good work. Not much to gripe about here at all. Hog Farm Bacon 03:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jr8825 (comments in progress)[edit]

  • I suggest adding the date of each plan to the section headers to make the chronology clearer & more accessible. e.g. Pincher (1946); Broiler (1947).
    checkY Done. Nowhere near as simple as it sounds, The problem here is that the sections are used by redirects. Added anchors to preserve this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...while the Army would release another 2 million under a points system." I presume this means releasing 2 million from active duty, but could be read as releasing 2 million from the conflict in the Pacific to occupation duty in Europe. Perhaps a slight reword ("while the Army would release another 2 million from duty under a points system") can clarify this?
    checkY Tweaked wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jr8825 • Talk 13:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Hawkeye7: I've copy-edited up to the end of Broiler and fixed a handful of grammatical issues. I've run out of time to work further through the article today, but I'll try look at the rest tomorrow. It's a good article on a very interesting topic. I really appreciate your work and I hope you'll take my following criticisms as good faith (I recognise I'm inexperienced with assessments, and would add that my judgement is based solely on my reading of the criteria, whereas I presume other editors have the experience of precedent).
  • I support the article against the A class criteria overall, although only just. I have a few reservations about A2 and A4.

With A2, I think there's a slight tendency to use excessive detail. See below for an example that stood out to me in Broiler:

Only Silverplate B-29 Superfortress bombers were capable of delivering nuclear weapons, and of the 65 that had been made, only 32 were operational at the start of 1948, all of which were assigned to the 509th Bombardment Group, which was based at Roswell Army Airfield in New Mexico. Trained crews were also in short supply; at the beginning of 1948 only six crews were qualified to fly atomic bombing missions, although enough personnel had been trained to assemble an additional fourteen in an emergency.

I don't think the detail I've struck through adds anything to the reader's understanding of US war plans 45–50. There are a few other examples of this (or information which could be simplified & condensed), but on balance I think the article still meets A2 as the majority of detail helps build a comprehensive picture of the plans.

With A4, the main issue is comma use/clause construction, which in some places affects legibility and creates ambiguity. Serial commas aren't consistently used throughout the article (MOS:SERIAL). I tried to avoid adding or removing many commas myself as I didn't want to force a specific style upon you. There appears to be some comma overuse and splicing, which I think would be easier to sort out once the serial commas are standardised. Perhaps the Guild of Copy Editors will have someone who's more qualified than me to look at this. I don't think the subject matter helps, as summing up detailed, technical plans encourages detailed, list-like prose – the hardest kind to write clearly and accurately! The writing itself is concise and mostly clear, and I don't think the article would "require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant", so it meets A4. I hope some you find some of my thoughts helpful, and would be interested to hear if you or other editors disagree/take a different view. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 00:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the clause highlighted above is that there was only one group equipped with Silverplate bombers, and it was located at only one air base. If I said that, the reader might well wonder: what group? and at what base? To take advantage of the linked structure of Wikipedia, I mentioned the actual group and base, with a link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining your thought process, I now get the clause's intended purpose. I know this might sound nit-picky, but please let me break the sentence down so I can explain why it's unclear. The main reason is that the subject of the last subclause is the 509th Bombardment Group, yet the significance of the information is that it's the bombers' sole location, not that it's air group's base:
"all of which were assigned to the 509th Bombardment Group, which was based at Roswell Army Airfield in New Mexico."
Spelling out the information explicitly, then rolling together the original two clauses into one subclause, makes it easier to understand the point being made and means the subject (the bombers) stays the same:
"all of which were assigned to a single formation, the 509th Bombardment Group at Roswell Army Airfield in New Mexico."
Because it's explained that they were assigned to one group, the group's location isn't necessary information (it's nice illustrative detail, but a trade-off with brevity) & can be removed without affecting the reader's understanding:
"all of which were assigned to a single formation, the 509th Bombardment Group."
In a complex article like this, and in a sentence with 4 other clauses, my preference would be to remove this information to help text flow and reader accessibility. I recognise that A2 (the unnecessary detail bit) is a subjective judgement though, and respect your decision (as a more experienced editor and the subject expert) to include it. The problem is that when extra information is combined with complex sentence structures, especially with grammar that's anything less than perfect, the writing can't be clear and concise. There are other places in the article, besides this example, with long sentences/structure and punctuation that's not technically accurate, and because of this the rich information comes at the expense of A4 (clear, concise prose).
I'm gonna take off my grammar fascist hat now and say that the article is great, and the A-class criteria is sufficiently met. I just wanted to explain more fully why clauses like the one above are a problem and why I think the article is "only just" A-class. Milhist A-class says it should be "very close to featured article quality", and I don't think the writing/grammar in the article is "of a professional standard" (featured article criteria 1a, which I'm sure you're more familiar with than I am since you've written many and I'm just preparing to submit my first!) Jr8825 • Talk 02:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

I'll try to get to this in the morning. Hog Farm Bacon 01:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Title page of the Sandia National Laboratory Source appears to suggest that the title uses the spelling Mark 4 Bomb, not Mk4 Bomb, although the latter is used frequently in the PDF text.

checkY It was the title of the PDF document. Who would have thought that they'd be different? I have corrected it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All sources are from high-quality sources. I did a few spot checks, and everything checked out. Hog Farm Bacon 14:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images - all check out license-wise

  • Could not repair this link. Archive.org broken again. Should I switch to a different image? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:03, 6 October 2020 (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 Harrias (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This articles covers the history of the 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division, from 1920 through to 1945. It was a British Army formation, which was notable for being one of a handful to be converted into a motor division prior to the start of the Second World War. During the war, the division stayed home throughout and ended up being part of the Fortitude deception. The article has previously been worked on by the GOCE, and until recently was rated as an A-Class article. I separated the 1908-1919 history into its own article, in part as this was a stumbling block during the FA review. This new iteration of the article has just passed its GA review.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

  • "The division regained its third infantry brigade, and became the 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division" - Maybe use a word other than "became" here, as it was previously that designation, and returned to it.
    I think this is probably an issue with the wording of the lede, using the article title in the first sentence. So: 55th (West Lancashire) Division from 1920-~1939; 55th (West Lancashire) Motor Division from 39-40; 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division from 40-45 (later title chosen for the article, as it was the name of the div during the most prominent part of this section of its history). Do you have a suggestion to avoid further confusion in the future?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I just made a few tweaks, does this work better now?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create 55th (West Lancashire) Motor Division and redirect it here
    Article and redirect createdEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "Following the end of the war and through 1919, the division was demobilised" - Give the year the war ended, not everyone's gonna have that background knowledge.
    added in the yearEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Lancashire
    link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Motor division
  • "the 6th Liverpool Rifles were retrained and transferred to the RE" - What's the RE? Royal Engineers, right? It needs linked/glossed
    Correct. I thought I fixed that previously, looks like I put the link in the wrong place and missed the prior abbreviation! I have fixed this now (hopefully!).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Home defence
  • The very last paragraph of this section has a lot of repetition of "the division". Eight sentences start with "the division", including four in a row. There's an instance of that phrase in almost every sentence. Is there a way to get some more variety here?
    I have made several changes in this regard, does this flow/work better now?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Better. I might have a few more comments at a FAC for this, but it's A-Class worthy right now. Hog Farm Bacon 15:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to pick on here at all, which isn't surprisingly, since this has largely gone through an ACR before. Hog Farm Bacon 14:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, i have attempted to address your points above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Hawkeye7[edit]

Looks pretty good.

  • What does "refounded" mean"? Suggest "reformed".
  • "division" is misspelt in the lead
  • "This process involved the break up of four-second-line territorial divisions" Suggest "This process involved breaking up four-second-line territorial divisions"

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your review. I have made tweaks to the article, per your comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Both images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Most sources used are scholarly. Where they are not they are used judiciously and appropriately. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, I reviewed this before the split and believe it meets the criteria, but have the following suggestions for tweaks: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, suggest linking brigade
  • in the lead, "In 1944, it was earmarked for overseas and combat, but instead was stripped of its assets" -- however, I wasn't quite sure that this was covered in the body. It mentions the higher establishment in the first sentence of the Wind down section, but I couldn't see where it was stated that it was earmarked to be sent overseas...? Suggest potentially explaining why this changed
  • suggest adding an image in the Wind down and deception section if possible to break up the text a little
  • in the References Becke is out of alphabetical order
  • Weinberg probably doesn't need the access
  • OCLC for Coop?
  • swap the order of Hogan and Holt
  • "pp. 4-6" --> endash
  • no duplicate links, no dab links, the ext links all work (no action required)
  • all information appears to be fully referenced (no action required)
  • "brigades of 66th Division" --> " brigades of the 66th Division"? There are a few other instances where you leave off the definite article when referring to distinct units; suggest making this consistent
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 Harrias (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

American logistics in the Northern France campaign[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

American logistics in the Northern France campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I split the article on US logistics in Overlord into two. This is the second part, covering the Northern France campaign - the breakout from Normandy and the pursuit to the German frontier. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • The topographic map comes from PD sources. The source website map comes from Ruppenthal, which is also PD. [36] What particular concerns do you have? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The one I'm concerned about is the second source (gmccckw.nl) which has an image of a different map with no original publication information or indication that they are reprinting with permission. (t · c) buidhe 01:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They aren't reprinting. That map is being used as a reference for the location of the bivouac areas. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other images, layout is fine (t · c) buidhe 23:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, Hawkeye, great work as always. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, the Allied invasion of northwest Europe during World War II that commenced on D-Day, 6 June 1944. On 25 July 1944, the First United States Army began Operation Cobra. Perhaps, "the Allied invasion of northwest Europe during World War II that commenced on D-Day, 6 June 1944. After the Allies secured a beachhead in Normandy, on 25 July 1944, the First United States Army began Operation Cobra..."
    checkY Added words to that effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the lead, Senior commanders subordinated logistical imperatives to operational opportunities. Perhaps, "Throughout the campaign, senior Allied commanders subordinated logistical imperatives to operational opportunities."
    checkY That is too harsh. Re-worded to "At critical junctures in the campaign, senior American commanders subordinated logistical imperatives to operational opportunities." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, that works for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the lead, While the logistical system had facilitated a great victory, these factors would be keenly felt: suggest clarify when they would be felt.
    checkY Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Background section, the first two sentences start with "After"; suggest rewording one to vary the language
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • commit more forces to the job"[18] But it was: missing full stop
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • effects than Bradley's 3 August decision: I wasn't quite sure what this decision was. Was it the decision not to capture Brittany?
    checkY Changed to refer to the actual decision rather than the date. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 5,000,000-US-barrel (600,000,000 l) of storage tanks were...: this seems a little awkwardly worded. Perhaps "The storage tanks had a capacity of 5,000,000-US-barrels (600,000,000 l) and were..."
    checkY Deleted "of" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • four weeks for the Navy --> US Navy?
    checkY Changed to "Allied Naval Forces". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The line was also subject to acts of sabotage: was this by "enemy" forces, criminal elements or ?
    checkY By German sympathizers, Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the regarded them as inconvenient --> "and the regarded them as inconvenient"
    checkY Deleted "the" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • railway lines, which had been badly damaged by the Allied Air Forces. Perhaps, "railway lines, which had been badly damaged by the Allied Air Forces during earlier interdiction operations"?
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major General Cecil R. Moore, the ETO Chief Engineer flew over: comma after "Engineer"?
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • as in had not --> "as it had not"
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lodgment" v "lodgement"
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • but in July 1943, the ASF ordered: has ASF been introduced as an abbreviation at this point?
    checkY An artefact of the split. Spelt out. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • affected the training of the personnel of motor transport units --> "affected the training of motor transport unit personnel"?
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • partially trained units in the hope of their being able to complete their training in the UK --> "partially trained units in the hope they would be able to complete their training in the UK"?
    checkY Changed as suggested. As an aside, this trick never works. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fourteen African-American truck companies had their personnel transferred to other African-American units. The intention was to replace them with Caucasian personnel: I don't quite follow here. Why wouldn't the existing trained African American transport personnel just be bolstered by a small number of Caucasian personnel from other units, rather than be replaced entirely? Was this a consequence of segregation? Seems counterproductive to say the least
    checkY Yes, counterproductive to say the very least. Racial segregation in the United States Armed Forces created a myriad of problems. It would have been far more efficient to assign personnel without regard to race, but the idea of living in close quarters with African-Americans was repugnant to many white Americans. I have noted that the Army was segregated, and added a link to the article on racial segregation in case the reader is unaware of this. If you're interested, the Army published a whole book on the subject, which you can downlaod for free here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice work, I have added my support above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • entered the Grande Rade in 16 July --> "on 16 July"
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • sources: all appear reliable to me based on authors or publishers and all information in the article appears to be referenced (no action required)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Whew! Heck of an article. Ping me once all or most of AR's points are cleared - so I won't be repeated issues already picked up - and I'll have a look at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Your turn. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The advance was much faster than expected". Possibly 'The advance was then much faster than expected'?
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bradley fixated on Brest, which was only intended to be a port of reception for troops, and Saint-Malo, a minor port, whereas Patton focused on Lorient and Quiberon Bay." It may be worth at this point briefly indicating out what Lorient and Quiberon Bay were to be used for, as you have with Brest and Saint-Malo.
    checkY Moved the text on Operation Chastity here from the other article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "because the approaches were not cleared." "not cleared" → 'could not be cleared' may make things clearer for the reader. (By avoiding begging a question.)
    checkY Elaborated on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brigadier General Pleas B. Rogers's Base Section No. 5, which had been specifically created for the role." It is not clear what role that is.
    checkY Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the beaches to Laval, 135 miles (217 km) distant, and then to Le Mans, another 175 miles (282 km) away." Is there a typo in there? Le mans is barely any further from the beaches than Laval.
    checkY Poor wording; Le Mans was 175 miles from the beaches. Changed to "another 40 miles further away". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "receipts had fallen 97,510 US gallons (369,100 l) short of its 450,000 US gallons (1,700,000 l) requirements." Should "requirements" not be singular?
    checkY Not sure. Changed anyway. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Breaks in the line on 29 August forced truck units to draw MT80 from Saint-Lô, 80 miles (130 km) further away." Further away from where? At the last mention in the text the pipeline had only reached St Lo.
    checkY Re-ordered the paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in July 1943, the Army Service Forces ordered 67,000 to be produced in 1944. The Truman Committee considered this wasteful, unnecessarily reducing the number of civilian trucks that could be built. Despite the adverse political pressure, the Army pressed on with the production program, but only 2,788 heavy-duty trucks came off the assembly lines in January 1944." This doesn't really explain the shortage. If "the Army pressed on with the production program" for "67,000", how come "only 2,788 heavy-duty trucks came off the assembly lines in January 1944."? Also 2,788 a month is an annual rate of 33,000, or half the required rate, which may be worth explicitly stating for the hard of math.
    checkY Added a bit more about why. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ordnance personnel noted instances of vehicles that had been sabotaged." Any suggestions as to by whom?
    checkY By their drivers. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "SHAEF made available an allocation of air transport capable of delivering up to 2,000 long tons (2,000 t) per day to the Le Mans area" Is it known where the supplies were flown from?
    checkY From bases in the UK. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "named after Junior Van Noy, an engineer posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor in the Battle of Finschhafen". This seems not to meet "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail" to me.
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Granville.
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It could be supported by ports that were captured" Possibly 'It could be supported by ports that had been captured', to make it clear that this was the case?
    checkY Sure. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "once it was beyond the range of fighter cover" → 'once the American advance was beyond the range of fighter cover'.
    checkY Sure. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Historian Roland Ruppenthal". 'The historian Roland Ruppenthal' avoids false title.
    checkY Done. Normally false titles like "Vice President Joe Biden" are acceptable in American English, but forbidden in British English, where they are considered an Americanism. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A cracking article. Good explanations of complex topics, and excellent prose. Nice one. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's better. A classic. Reads better than most chapter length treatments in books on the US in NW Europe 1944-45. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

I reviewed this one at GAN, so there's probably not a whole lot I'm gonna catch here. Hog Farm Bacon 20:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background
  • "and unable to berth vessels drawing more than 14 to 15 feet (4.3 to 4.6 m) at high water" - Link to Draft (hull) or something similar, as draft is a bit of a technical term.
    checkY Sure. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Seine at the first mention, not the later ones.
    checkY Fixed links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
POL
  • "The War Office agreed to supply 221,000 per month," - Is there a link for War Office here, it's the only mention in the article I believe.
    checkY Yes it is. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got, I guess I caught most of my points in the GA review. Excellent article, and none of these three points keep me from supporting now. Hog Farm Bacon 02:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:43, 30 September 2020 (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) 03:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Fakhkh[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

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

Toolbox

The Battle of Fakhkh was the result of a failed Alid/Shia uprising against the Abbasid Caliphate in 786. Its most notable effect was that some of the Alid participants dispersed in its aftermath to the far corners of the Islamic world, where the Abbasid writ did not run; the first Shi'a dynasty, the Idrisids of Morocco, was the chief result of this. Nevertheless, the events of the revolt give a vivid picture of the rivalries and competing concepts of political authority in early Islam. The article was recently expanded and brought to GA, and I am certain it is ready for A-class as well. Any comments or suggestions for improvement are of course more than welcome. Constantine ✍ 09:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Hog Farm[edit]

Disclaimer: I have extremely little background knowledge of this topic, so some of my comments may be way off base. Hog Farm Bacon 02:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • What calendar is being used for these dates?
    • AD/CE, why?
      • I thought I'd read somewhere that there was a special Islamic calendar
        • Yes there is, the Hijri calendar, you can detect when years are counted in it by the annotation "AH" (Anno Hegirae). But this isn't used at all here, all dates have been converted into the Julian/Common Era calendar (including in the sources used) for convenience
  • "The uprisingled had a strong social character" - Uprisingled?
    • Fixed
  • Preparation and outbreak of the revolt at Medina - This feels like an unnecessarily long section title
    • Good point, shortened
  • " flogged and publicly humiliated for drinking wine;" - For context, I think you should probably include a brief statement about Islamic views on the consumption of alcohol in this time period
    • Good point, added
  • "one of them Musa ibn Ja'far al-Kadhim, who is considered as the seventh imam by the Twelver Shi'a, who reportedly warned Husayn that his actions would only result in his death" - Grammatically, this doesn't read right to me
    • Fixed
  • "In their wake, they left the mosque in such a state of filth, defiled with bones of the animals the beleaguered Alids had been eating, and its curtains cut up to make kaftans, leading to general indignation among the Medinese" - Drop such
    • Drop what? You mean tone down the description?
      • The word "such"
        • Hah, of course. Done.
  • " had taken a long a strong escort" - Should be along, not a long
    • Fixed
  • Mecca is a duplink in the lead
    • Fixed
  • Medina is an overlink in the body
    • Fixed

Unfortunately, I don't have the background knowledge necessary to provide an in-depth analysis beyond a stylistic one. Hog Farm Bacon 03:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog Farm thanks for taking the time. I've answered your comments above. No worries on lacking the background knowledge, the topic is rather niche... I am really interested in whether the article is readable and understandable precisely from the viewpoint of the average reader who isn't versed in early Islamic history. If you have any comments or suggestions for improvements there (quite beyond ACR requirements), I am all ears. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 16:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

All images are free (t · c) buidhe 07:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass[edit]

All sources appear to be reliable, no source checks done (t · c) buidhe 07:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Fine work as expected. A few comments:

Lead
  • who is "also known in later histories"? al-Husayn ibn Ali or Hasan ibn Ali?
    • Clarified, thanks
  • suggest "where Husayn's supporters swore allegiance to him."
    • Done
  • it isn't clear in the lead (or body) how the Alids got out of Medina if they were holed up in the mosque. Was there an agreement for safe passage or something?
    • Nothing is explicitly stated in the sources, but you can think of the city as a neutral battleground, in which two gangs fought for control in the central square. When one of the two gangs decided to withdraw, the other gang was glad to see them go, and no-one else was about to intervene since this meant the end of the clashes.
Body
  • "The relationship between the Abbasids and the Alids was troubled and underwent many changes." seems out of place, because it goes on immediately to talk about the Alids and the Umayyads rather than the Abbasids and the Alids
    • Good point. Have rephrased and put both in the context of their common origin in the anti-Umayyad movements.
  • could you provide a timeframe for the troubled Alid and Umayyad relationship?
  • who was "inspired by the belief..."? in general, this sentence is too long, break it up
    • See my rewrite
  • "and had to face a major Alid revolt"
    • Done
  • the sentence beginning "Al-Husayn ibn Ali, a close relative" is trying to do too much. Suggest "A close relative of Muhammad al-Nafs al-Zakiyya was Al-Husayn ibn Ali. His father Ali was Muhammad's first cousin, and his mother Zaynab was Muhammad's aunt. Husayn grew up "in an atmosphere of extreme piety and of secret hatred for the Abbasids"."
    • Thanks, that is indeed much better
  • al-Mahdi's reign is given as 775–786, but he died in July 785?
    • Typo error, fixed.
  • suggest "The historian Al-Tabari"
    • Done
  • "and that he had three men"
    • Done
  • link Flagellation
    • Done
  • "against consumption of alcohol by drinking wine"
    • Done
  • "from the subsequent passages", worth reminding us that this is from Al-Tabari, if that is right
    • Done
  • is there some implied knowledge about a Sunni/Shi'a divide that should be stated explicitly?
  • "hostility towards the Alids, causing great discontent among the Shi'a" implies they are one and the same, but is this because the Alids were leaders among the Shi'a?
    • For both of the above, I've added the link between the two groups to the initial discussion of the Alids.
  • "two of the Alids" just two people, or senior Alid leaders?
    • Two of the Alids, i.e. two descendants of Ali. Since leadership was the potential prerogative of every Alid, the distinction does not matter here. I do draw a distinction between the Alids and their followers, though.
  • Yahya ibn Abdallah is redlinked after he is first mentioned
    • Thanks, fixed
  • "Abbasid partisans"? and later Alids are referred to as partisans - confusing. What about just troops/rebels?
    • "Partisans" here is in the sense of belonging to a political faction/party, not as a guerrilla.
  • "Caliph al-Hadi "
    • Done
  • "who sent it on to Khurasan" why there?
    • Not clarified in the source. However, Khurasan was notorious as a sectarian breeding-ground: it was there that the Abbasid Revolution had begun, after all. And as the most extensive province of the caliphate, the Abbasids were very anxious to keep it in line. This is just my inference, however.
  • suggest "raised a revolt in Daylam in 792"
    • Done

That's all I could find. A few spots where knowledge is assumed and needs more information, but mostly just grammar and minor things. Nice work, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: thanks for the thorough review, I've addressed the issues pointed out. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 14:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I think this is missing is an introductory para in the Background summarising the previous history of the Islamic caliphate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Constantine, just checking you've seen this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peacemaker67, I was about to start working on this again. Thanks for the notification nonetheless :) Constantine ✍ 17:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: I've rewritten the Background section, not adding information as much as ordering it around to make it more easy to access (at least I hope so). Please have a look. Constantine ✍ 15:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Big improvement, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

I have done a little copy editing, which you will wish to check.

  • Infobox: "al-Husayn ibn Ali". Upper case A I think.
    • Done
  • "Subsequently, the Abbasids tried to secure Alid support, or at least acquiescence, through salaries and honours at court, but some, chiefly the Zaydi and Hasanid branches of the Alids, continued to reject them as usurpers, with some Alids going into hiding and once again trying to rouse the discontented against the new regime." A little long. (And convoluted.)
    • Rewritten
  • "Husayn thus grew up "in an atmosphere of extreme piety and of secret hatred for the Abbasids" " You need to attribute the author in line.
    • Done
  • "later Shi'a writers claim that this was due to the hostility". Possibly "this" → 'it'?
    • {{color|darkblue|Rewritten
  • "Khalid charged to kill Husayn". I don't much like this; any chance of a reword? (Eg 'Khalid charged forward and attempted to kill Husayn' or something.)
    • Rewritten
  • "On the next morning" → 'Next morning'.
    • Done
  • "on the next day" → 'the next day'.
    • Done
  • "to the far reaches of the Islamic world, with far-reaching repercussions". Optional: rephrase to avoid "far" twice in eight words.
    • Rewritten

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild, I've done the recommended changes. Please have a look and let me know if there is anything else. Constantine ✍ 15:00, 20 September 2020 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Manned Orbiting Laboratory[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Manned Orbiting Laboratory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Secret US Air Force project to develop a manned spy satellite. Article has been around sine 2004, but the release of documents in 2015, including an official history, allows its story to be told. Has recently passed a GA review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All images appear to be free and correctly licensed. However, I do wonder if the article could be improved by reducing the galleries a bit by removing a few images. For instance, it's not obvious to me whether the reader's understanding is improved by the picture of the heat shield. (t · c) buidhe 09:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The major difference between the Gemini and its Air Force twin Gemini B is the hatch in the heat shield. Its mentioned five times in the article. Testing it was the reason for the test flight. I thought the readers might be curious as to what it looked like. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Constantine[edit]

Looks very interesting, will read and comment here over the following days. Constantine ✍ 20:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • but concerns were raised as to whether permission to land in Brazil would be forthcoming why is this relevant here?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just out of curiosity, how plausible was to expect anyone to overlook the project's military purpose when the POTUS announces an orbital facility run by USAF instead of NASA? Put another way, what was the public justification (including to Congress) for a parallel space programme, given the already enormous costs of NASA? This is sort-of mentioned in the article when dealing with its delays and eventual cancellation, and the "concerns about how the MOL was viewed by the international community" are hinted at, but perhaps it should be explicitly stated.
    In the early days of the space program, the distinction between military and civil uses of space were uncertain and unclear: communications, weather, geodesy and global positioning all had military as well as civil uses, and the military had all the resources in terms of rockets, development and launch facilities, and trained scientific and technical personnel. That NASA picked up the manned space program was something of a quirk of fate. Debate in Congress is discussed in the Launch complex section. I have added a couple of extra paragraphs to the "Public responses" section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gen. Schriever's photo is the first image in the main article, but he is first mentioned in the text further down. I'd recommend adding to the caption an explanation that informs the reader at a glance of his connection/importance to the MOL program. Ditto for Bleymaier.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise this is really an outstanding article, that deals with the subject in a comprehensive way. Given its length and complexity, I will do another couple of read-throughs, but I don't think there are any major obstacles to supporting. Constantine ✍ 09:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just completed a re-read, and these are my final concerns:

  • Mayo argued that the resolution provided by Gambit 3, and proposed something is missing here
    Added "was adequate". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • advice to fly the first mission manned was a mistake but the first mission was flown unmanned? The gist in this section seems to be that they should have flown manned, which then would have prevented cancellation, but this doesn't fit. Is something missing?
    Good point. I think by "empty can" he still meant a crewed mission, but without the optics. reworded this paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's still the "Although" which doesn't quite make sense. Constantine ✍ 11:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The file with the caption "The MOL program used state-of-the-art computers for design and simulation" appears somewhat unconnected to the section it is placed in. I'd also suggest adding a reference to the caption itself, since this is an assertion that requires attribution.

Otherwise I really cannot find anything to complain about... Constantine ✍ 19:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No further comments, switching to support. Constantine ✍ 19:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ykraps[edit]

Not my area of expertise but looks like it's in danger of being overlooked, which would be a shame. Here goes...--Ykraps (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • "Astronauts selected for the program were later told of the secret reconnaissance mission". I feel I'm missing something here. What secret reconnaissance mission?
    checkY Mission is used in a different sense here. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nicely done. Much clearer.

Infobox:

  • Infers it spent 40 days in orbit but from what I can gather from the lead, it was cancelled before it went into space. Am I missing something?
    checkY refers to how long it was designed to spend. removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • "In July 1957.... .....telescopes and other observation devices". I'm having trouble understanding this sentence. Can you check for typos, omissions etc?
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I think I understand now. It looks like 'the employment of space vehicles' was the title of the paper. I think it's much better to leave it out altogether, as you have done, but if you really wanted to keep it, you could capitalise the initials and put in quotation marks or italics. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles. Assuming it is a title of course.
  • "The USAF already started..." Shouldn't that be had already started?
    checkY Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...that it was hoped that spy satellites..." Do we need the second 'that'?
    checkY No. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and March 1959..." Should that be "and in March 1959"?
    checkY Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Planning:

  • "...one that secret and publicly unacknowledged.." Is that, "one that secret and publicly unacknowledged" or "...one that was secret and publicly unacknowledged"
    checkY Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a shirt-sleeve environment?
    A shirt-sleeve environment is one where you don't need to wear a spacesuit. Already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Missed that too. Although I could probably have worked it out if I'd thought about it a bit more.
  • The flight schedule at the end of this section; is it a proposed flight schedule or did some of it actually occur? I notice that bullet point 3 says, "would have". Can we make it equally clear which bits did not happen? Or, if none of it went ahead, you could just label it "proposed schedule", or similar.
    checkY "Schedule" doesn't mean anything happened; but added "planned". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    wikt:schedule: "A procedural plan, usually but not necessarily tabular in nature, indicating a sequence of operations and the planned times at which those operations are to occur." I considered adding "planned", but another Wikipedian would likely remove it as a tautology. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modules:

  • I think imperial units [[United States customary units]] ought to come first in an Am Eng article. I don't suppose you call them imperial units so I hope you understand what I mean
    checkY They all should now. feel free to double-check. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I think there is a way to get the template to spell metre as meter.
    checkY Yes, there is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like to think most people are familiar with nautical miles but you can add a link to the template by adding lk=on Just a suggestion.
    checkY Linked the first instance. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the main Dorian camera had..." Switches to imperial units first template. See my first point in this section.
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On subsequent mentions, you can abbreviate nautical miles by adding abbr=on to the template. Again, just a suggestion.
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery:

Spacesuits:

  • Link Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Unless I missed that one as well.
    Already linked in the Background section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Doh!

Astronauts:

  • "When it came to selecting astronauts for MOL, the commandant of the ARPS, Schriever took the advice of Colonel Charles E. "Chuck" Yeager, the commandant of the ARPS, and restricted selection to ARPS graduates". I'm a little bit confused here by the apparent repetition of "the commandant of the ARPS". Is this sentence correct?
    checkY Ack! Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To prevent their return to the Navy, Finley and Truly stayed at ARPS as instructors until the announcement". I Don't quite understand why they would be required to return to the Navy. Also, would this sentence be better after the list, when Finley and Truly have been introduced as MOL pilots and linked to their articles.
    checkY because they were Navy officers. The navy expects its officers to sail ships and fly airplanes and the other stuff sailors do. They were at ARPS on a training course.
    I assumed they had been released from their normal duties.

More to come.--Ykraps (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Training:

  • Probably explained already but what are win sessions?
    checkY A typo. Should be "in sessions". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would launched from the west coast lead to assumptions the mission was reconnaissance?
    checkY A West Coast launch implied a polar orbit. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Cancellation:

  • "...could shift from its regular 80 nautical mile orbit to a 200 to 300 nautical mile..." you could use nmi abbreviation here.
    checkY Abbreviated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...for the MOL to be cancelled..." Canceled?
    checkY Arrggh. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy:

  • "At the time of the MOL was cancelled..." Don't think 'of' should be in there and 'canceled' again.
    checkY Got it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Those that did not transfer..." Shouldn't that be those who did not transfer?
    checkY Sure. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Wright Patterson Airforce Base is a duplicate link.
    checkY So it is. Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all folks! --Ykraps (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

This one's been waiting over a month, so I'll get to this later today. Hog Farm Bacon 17:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to discuss any and all of these points.

  • What makes Encyclopedia Astronautica a reliable source? It appears to be WP:SPS by Mark Wade. What kind of credentials does Wade have?
    Encyclopedia Astronautica is listed as a RS on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 190#Johnston's Archive - self published site. Used on 12,000 articles. has some pretty solid endorsements. [37] I think he's an aerospace engineer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto with Gunter's Space Page
    Gunter Krebs is a journalist who specialises in spacecraft, and is widely acknowledged as a subject export. His pages are quoted in 8,550 Wikipedia articles, and 234 papers on Google scholar. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of these PDFs really need page numbers. United States Air Force (8 May 1968). MOL Flight Test and Operations Plan is 523 pages long and lacks page numbers. At that point, it's like citing an entire book. I get that it's numbered within sections, so it's 7-1 and such for pages, but when the PDF is over 500 pages long, I feel like there needs to be some sort of page number for verification.
    But it does cite the relevant page number: 2-2. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Erickson, you include the state where the AFB is located, but not for Eppley, probably best to be consistent here
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second EL is dead for me. I can't tell if it's a temporary outage though, since it's not giving me a numbered code.
    (Tries it) Hmmm. I have had problems with the DTIC site that come and go over time. There was one set of documents that I kept trying to download every week for months, and then suddenly did. Added an archive link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Brady 1965, p. 08." - This seems a little odd for a page number, especially since you use single digit page numbers earlier without the leading zero
    checkY Typo. Should be 108. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Review of MOL Residues" is 180 pages long, lacks a page number for the citation, and has traditional page numbering methodology. I see no reason not to include a page number for verification.
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ref "Gemini Capsule" from the AFSMM is not working for me.
    checkY Added an archive link. It was there last month. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Advanced MOL Planning" is 60 pages, could use a page number/range. Also, this title is in italics, and none of the other refs titles are italicized
    checkY Corrected, added page range. particularly impressed with pp. 5-6. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the ref titles are in sentence case, others are in title case. Pick one and be consistent
    checkY All switched to title case. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""MOL Program Plan, Volume 1 of 2" - Over 300 pages, needs a page number/range
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SSLV-5 NO. 9 Post Firing Flight Test Report (Final Evaluation Report) and Mol EFT Final Flight Test Report" needs a publisher
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sven's Space Place is self-published, does Grahn have credentials that would pass WP:SPS?
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced nominator, so no source checks done. Hog Farm Bacon 19:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

I'll give this one a look, although it may take me a bit because of the article's length. Hog Farm Bacon 02:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm! It only needs one more review and can then be closed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comparing these to JennyOz's, so there may be some duplicate comments.

Lead
  • " was part of the United States Air Force's human spaceflight program. The project was developed from early USAF" - Gloss the USAF acronym after United States Air Force
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "(equivalent to $367 million in 2018)" - Are the proper inflation tables for 2019 out there to give the updated number? This applies throughout the article.
    checkY Well, yes. Did you know how to update it? Me neither, but I have done it. Note that the economics wonks insist that the GDP be used as the deflator for military research projects rather than CPI. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "followed by its first piloted orbital flight in April 1966,[15][16] In a 22 February memorandum to the Secretary of the Air Force," - Looks like the comma after 1966 should be a period
    checkY Yup. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and the initiation the MOL program." - Something is off here
    checkY Added "of". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Planning
  • "A $10.55 million (equivalent to $63.6 million in 2018) Fixed-price contract was signed with Douglas" - Drop the capital on Fixed
    checkY De-capitated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " All-Navy crew composed of Truly and Crippen or Overmyer" - First mentions of these people. Need a short explanation of who they are.
    checkY Instead, I have moved the flight schedule down after the astronaut section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Astronauts
  • " Four classes were conducted between June 1961, and May 1963" - Is this comma really necessary?
    checkY No. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In October 1965, the MOL Policy Committee decided that MOL crew members would be designated a "MOL Aerospace Research Pilots" rather than astronauts" - as, not a, I believe
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such as Dorian, Gambit, Hexagon, and Talent Keyhole" - I believe this is the first mentions of Hexagon and Talent Keyhole. Is there a way to link or gloss what these programs were?
    checkY Yeah, what was Talent and Keyhole? Wikipedia doesn't say. Fortunately, the CIA is more open about it. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Through the astronauts section. More to come later. Hog Farm Bacon 14:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Launch complex
Easter Island
  • "Like the NASA Gemini, the Gemini B spacecraft would splashdown in the Atlantic or Pacific oceans. In the event of an abort, it could have come down in the eastern Pacific Ocean" - The use of have in the second sentence changes the tense a bit. Unless it changes your meaning, I'd say remove the word.
    checkY Tweaked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delay and cost increases
  • " Douglas wanted $815.8 million for the laboratory vehicles" - Can we get a comparison to current dollars amount?
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cancellation
  • "The value of VLR, Mayo argued, was not worth the additional cost" - Only time VLR is used. Error?
    checkY Typo. Should be VHR. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They thought the meeting went well, but Nixon accepted the Bureau of the Budget's recommendation to cancel the MOL and proceed with Hexagon instead" - But I thought Hexagon had been cancelled the month before?
    checkY Yes. Re-worded to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • "became the point of contact for MOL Contracts were terminated" - the only way I can make this make sense is if there should be a period after MOL.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McDonnel-Douglas" - Watch the spelling
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that's it. Good work on a complex subject. Hog Farm Bacon 20:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Mztourist[edit]

Perhaps I'm missing it but its unclear to me what happened to the Laboratory Module after the Gemini B left it? Did it reenter the atmosphere or did it remain in orbit? The lede describes the MOL as "a single-use laboratory" but doesn't seem to given any further explanation. Mztourist (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The MOL mockup went into a 305 x 209 km orbit. It released three OV4 satellites into low Earth orbit, and conducted some experiments. It reentered the atmosphere on 9 January 1967. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The page should explain how the Laboratory Modules would be disposed of. I initially thought that the Laboratory Module could be revisited, like Skylab. Mztourist (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Added a bit more about this, explicitly stating that this was not so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]

Hi Hawkeye, was going to make a couple of tweaks yesterday but saw was under review so .... two birds, one stone.

  • protested Sputnik's overflying - is that possessive or plural - ie is overflying a noun as well as a verb?
    It's possessive, and overflying is a verb. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • proceed as quickly as possible with Discover - Discoverer
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • first piloted orbital flight in April 1966,[15][16] In - swap comma to full stop
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • McNamara and NASA Administrator - the NASA?
    Added "James E. Webb" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He had been the Discover/Corona program - Discoverer
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed-price contract was signed - decap Fixed?
    checkY De-capitated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and Pratt & Whitney for - remove and before Pratt?
    checkY Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of 1 September 1966, the MOL flight schedule was: - remove spaces before refs in this list (x 6)
    checkY Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • was removed since Gemini B capsule itself - the Gemini B capsule itself
    checkY Added "the" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • cabin was presurized with - typo ss
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • had custom-made set of flight, - sets plural or a custom-made set
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • between June 1961, and May 1963. - remove comma after 1961
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • groups in 1959, 1962, and - remove comma before and? (or Oxfords intended?)
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOL program office v MOL program Office v MOL Program Office
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • providing crew input them. - to them
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • space suit v spacesuit
    checkY Not sure about this one. went with "spacesuit". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • General John L. Martin suggested - wrong wlink, should be John L. Martin Jr.?
    checkY Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • assumption that objective of - the objective
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cost of construction ... estimated to cost $31 million - 2 x cost, second should be "to be"
    checkY Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • parking areas and with asphalt, - remove and?
    checkY Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • built at a cost $32,500,000 - insert of
    checkY Inserted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • USAF budgeted $147.9 million - at
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and $381 below what - insert million
    checkY Inserted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • contracts had to be renegotiated,[45] - swap comma to full stop
    checkY Swapped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • remain on orbit - in?
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although Crippen did not think automation could not completely replace astronauts - remove second "not"?
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The value of VLR, Mayo argued - typo VHR?
    checkY Yes. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 9 April, Nixon reduce the MOL's - reduced
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • point of contact for MOL Contracts - new sentence? ie fullstop after MOL?
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • on the McDonnel-Douglas contract - double L McDonnell
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • McDonnell Douglas v McDonnel-Douglas
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time of the MOL - remove of
  • on 5 November 1967, - typo, should be 15 November
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • were based on materials, processes - was based (or make plural Boosters)
    checkY made plural. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Base in Dayton, Ohio (on loan - comma after Ohio
    checkY added comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 34 Homer 2019, p. 45-46. - pp
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 58 Homer 2019, p. 49-52. - pp
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 74 Homer 2019, p. 31,34. - pp
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 108 Homer 2019, p. 69-70. - pp
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 111 Homer 2019, pp. 89. - p
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 115 Homer 2019, pp. 72. - p
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Pls let me know if you need any clarifications of my short notes. JennyOz (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • for the MOL Contracts that were terminated - now decap Contracts?

Nothing more, I am happy to support. JennyOz (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2020 (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) 13:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Vanamonde93 (talk)

Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A short article from me for a change. This one is about an instructive episode of recent Latin American history; Cuba seized two freighters flying Panamanian flags, accusing them of piracy, and a controversy followed. All comments are welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
  • All images are free.
  • Any chance of free images of either of the affected boats? (t · c) buidhe 01:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so, Buidhe...I've looked a fair bit. I can't even seem to find non-free photos, let alone free ones. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review—pass

Sources are all free and adequately cited (although for FAC I would expect a more consistent citation style). (t · c) buidhe 01:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the reviews. My logic with formatting is to use sfn only for those sources that require multiple ranges, because jumping up and down is a little easier without sfn. I'm happy to modify the formatting if you think it's an issue. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: Based on a conversation with Peacemaker below, I've added one source, thought I should let you know. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Buidhe
  • Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations states, "Using United States instead of an acronym is often better formal writing style". This article uses a mixture of United States and US, and uses US in the lead without the full name, which seems undesirable. I would recommend expanding all to "United States".
    My general approach is to use United States at first use but not after, because there's very many uses (five just in the lead); this rule wasn't being followed in this article, but I've fixed it now
  • Among Cuban exiles in Miami, Santiago Babún, one of the brothers, was believed to have been an agent of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) while in Cuba I assume this means that Cuban exiles believed that Babún was a CIA agent? Maybe this could be rephrased to be more clear and avoid passive voice
    Actually, the source suggests the belief was held by the Cuban exile community, hence the phrasing
  • Page 69 of the book does not actually state that the author was "a long-term correspondent on Latin America for the US media". You can fudge a bit with very brief descriptors such as "American journalist", but this definitely needs a verifiable source (t · c) buidhe 13:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's reasonable. I've trimmed it; I don't know that it's a contentious piece of information, and is supported by his bio at WaPo etc, but independent sources don't generally say this; so I've just dropped it. @Buidhe: I think that's everything. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by PM[edit]

Interesting article. I have a few comments:

Lead
  • link Cuba, Panama, Miami (in my experience few people know where these places are), Cuban exile, gunboat, insurgency
    Done, and also Bahamas (I'm happy to do this, because the links are informative; I do think it likely that some AWB-wielder will remove them citing OVERLINK at some point).
  • say the Cuban government was socialist
    I'm wary of ascribing ideology only to that government in the lead; not only is it a very contentious label, there's also analyses of Cuban exile ideology that I'm avoiding for the same reason, namely that it's too complex for the lead (and largely, for the article). I've amended it to read "government of Fidel Castro", which identifies it clearly enough, I think
  • put (CIA) after Central Intelligence Agency and use it later in the lead
    Done
  • say "The US government" was that of Nixon
    done
  • suggest "though he was released without facing trial"
    The source doesn't quite make this explicit; charges were brought; Dinges says reams of legal paper were generated; so the trial may have been initiated, or it may not; and it's fairly clear he was released without a conviction.
  • "ships' logs" possessive plural noun
    Fixed.
Body

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest "(also described as the Lyle Express,[1] the Lalia Express,[2] and the Lyla Express[3])" is put in a note.
    Done
  • "A 1997 biography of George H. W. Bush" I think it would be of value to mention that he was later Director of Central Intelligence then president
    Added.
  • "responsible for shelling the Cuban village of Samá" shelling by a freighter? Very odd.
    Well, the source says a boat, so we don't know what it was; but considering the context, it was most likely a sizeable weapon mounted on a freighter, rather than a vessel designed for use in combat. I've scoured the sources, and more details aren't available.
  • US Coast guard→US Coast Guard
    Done
  • Cuban Gunboat→Cuban gunboat
    Done
  • convert 235-foot using the following syntax {{cvt|235|ft|m|adj=on}}
    Done
  • per MOS:AMPM, 11:35 am, same for later times
    Done
  • "the gunboat had opened fire" with what?
    I wish I knew. The sources don't say. I rather suspect that military historians who would pay attention to that kind of thing passed over this relatively minor incident, whereas political scientists got more mileage out of it thanks to its implications for international relations.
  • "that it would "all measures under international law"" undertake?
    Fixed; used "take", simpler.
  • "charges of espionage were brought against Villahim"
    Theoretically, that's ambiguous; there's two named people in that sentence
  • "examinations of the ships' log books" same as above
    Done
  • suggest "use the success of the mission as a bargaining chip in subsequent negotiations with the US"
    Done.
  • has there been any discussion of these incidents in relation to the Law of the Sea other than the essentially self-serving Military Law Review case study?
    Not that I am aware of. I have scoured the sources to the best of my abilities. Since you asked, I did another sweep, and came across the original of that case study (link). It's surprisingly somewhat more nuanced than the MLR source suggests, so I will add a sentence from it. I was unable to find anything else. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for the review; I believe I have addressed everything. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed[edit]

  • Lead: ...the freighters Leyla Express and Johnny Express were seized... suggest "the freighters Leyla Express and Johnny Express and their crew were seized..."
    I don't know if I agree; it's implied, and is covered in the body; they'd hardly dump the crew in the ocean, would they?
  • Lead: on December 5: I think that should be ; not :
    Changed.
  • Lead: ...intercepted by gunboats of the island of Little Inagua...: there is a typo here, the first "of" should be "off". However, I think the language is getting a bit repetitive so suggest replacing the first "of" with "near".
    True, tweaked.
  • Lead: and accused the ships of piracy. I don't think ships can be accused of anything; the company or the owners could be.
    tweaked somewhat; it's a bit fuzzy because the captured crew weren't necessarily the ones engaging in shelling etc
  • Lead: one of Bahama Lines ships missing a possessive I think?
    Indeed. fixed
  • Background: The corporation belonged to four brothers... belong to seems a strange way of putting this, suggest "owned by" (unless you are concerned by reading too closely on the source?)
    The source says "belongs", but I don't see any reason not to say "owns", it just hadn't occurred to me. switched.
  • Vessel seizures: The company stated that the US Coast Guard had been notified of every incident, but that it had not taken any action. It is not clear whether "it" is the company or the USCG. I assume it is the latter, so suggest: "the company stated that the US Coast Guard had been notified of every incident, but no action had been taken."
    Runs a little close to the source; gone with "but that the Coast Guard had not taken any action."
  • Suggest breaking the paragraph where it mentions the seizure of the Leyla Express.
    Feels a little proseline-y to me; can do it if you feel strongly...
  • I'm not going to insist on it so it doesn't affect my supportbut it does seem like there are two different themes to that paragraph, hence the suggestion. Zawed (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vessel seizures: and escorted to the Cuban port of Baracoa. Cuba/Cuban is used three times in this sentence, but I don't think it is necessary to say the port is Cuban. It kind of goes without saying.
    Fair enough. done.
  • Reactions and negotiations: A spokesperson for the US Department of State... The Department of State is linked here but it is actually first mentioned in the previous section so should be linked there.
    True, moved.
  • Reactions and negotiations: According to Verne... shouldn't he be referred to by surname, not given name?
    Indeed he should
  • Reactions and negotiations: owners of the Bahamas Lines Typo in company name here
    Fixed that and one other instance
  • Havana is linked on its second mention, not its first.
    Fixed
  • Manuel Noriega is linked twice.
    Intentional; IMHO these are far enough apart that they are useful, especially as there isn't much context for who Noriega is in either case.

That is my review done. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Thanks for a careful prose review, it's much appreciated. I believe I have addressed all your points. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good, responded above and added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

It looks like this one's fairly close, so I'll go ahead and get a review in over the next couple days. Hog Farm Bacon 16:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "by the CIA.[15][16][10] " - Ref order
    Fixed, thanks
  • "naturalized US citizen.[5][2][8] T" - Ref order
    Likewise
  • "that the Cuban government had been forced to spend a lot of money and resources to" - I personally don't consider "a lot of" to be particularly encyclopedic phrasing
    Fair. Castro says "fabulous sums", which I've simply quoted.

Well, that's about it. Very good work here. None of those points are significant, and probably a bit personal preference over anything else, so I'm going to go ahead and support now. Hog Farm Bacon 18:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 16 September 2020 (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) 22:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

HSwMS Oscar II[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Simongraham (talk)

HSwMS Oscar II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I was encouraged to do so by Peacemaker67. simongraham (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All images are freely licensed. The only issue is some sandwiching versus the infobox, see MOS:IMAGELOC. It would be great to have a better quality version of the lead image, but not required. (t · c) buidhe 03:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Please can you explain how to resolve the sandwich issue? Would you recommend moving the diagram to the top of the Design section or would it be necesary to place it to the right of the text? Unfortunately I could not find a better image that met the criteria for inclusion. However, please do browse the extensive archive at digitalmuseum.se as there are lots of images of the ship there, including [The Swedish coastal defence ship HMS Oscar II][[38]] and [Oscar II in World War II][[39]] which are in wikimedia. There are likely to be better images that I have missed. simongraham (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it across and down below the infobox. I'll do a content review tomorrow. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to wait until the source review and CPA-5's reviews have been addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all your help so far. This is a great learning experience. simongraham (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Does Prendegast & Parkes 1904 have an OCLC?
  • Should be Prendergast, I believe, see [40]
  • Are you sure that's the right ISBN for von Hofsten & Waernberg? See [41]
  • Gardiner has an internet archive link [42], link to it for verification
  • "130 to 190 mm (5.1 to 7.5 in) main turrets" from the infobox is not cited anywhere that I see.
  • "before being decommissioned on 24 February 1950.[28]" - The decommission date is on page 69 of Borgenstam, but the citation gives page 68 (which is correct for the first part of the sentence). You need a page range here.
  • "When World War I started, the Swedish fleet was mobilised with Oscar II as flagship, and spent much of the war practicing firing and damage control due to the country's neutral position" - Not seeing where the source explicitly states Sweden was netural
  • "escort for Victor Emmanuel III of Italy in July 1913" - This is a bit nit-picky, but technically the source states that Amalfi was the escort, the source can be read to indicate that the other ships were only part of the welcoming party
  • "prohibited the use of champagne in the baptizing ceremony." - rephrase this, this is nine words in a row that's exactly the same as in the source, so a little minor COPYVIO here, when it's totally avoidable.
  • " During World war I two of the 57 mm guns were replaced by anti-aircraft guns of the same caliber, M/89 B" is what the source says, which isn't exactly compatible with " including fitting new high angle mounts for two of the 57 mm guns for anti-aircraft defence in 1916" (I'm hoping I'm comparing the correct statements)

I've checked almost all of the Borgenstam references, I'll check Garinder later. Nothing big here, but enough small errors to make me a little uneasy. Hog Farm Bacon 20:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"the last Swedish coastal defence ship to be scrapped" is in the lead (and not cited) but is not verified in the body. I'm not quite comfortable with the sourcing right now, especially since I've only checked Borgenstam and several of the print sources I can't access. Hog Farm Bacon 01:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a very thorough review. I have taken on board your comments and hopefully the article is much better now. simongraham (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, turns out I can't access the relevant page of Gardiner 1979. @Simongraham: - There were some minor issues with Borgenstam, and I'm worried there might be some minor issues elsewhere. If you're willing to check all of the citations to the non-Borgenstam sources to make sure you got everything exactly right, I'm willing to AGF the edits. Hog Farm Bacon 04:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have that volume of Conways; the cites are correct.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

  • HSwMS Oscar II was a coastal defence ship Can you add a note with the meaning of HSwMS onto it? It does not need a citation to a source.
  • A development of the preceding Äran class What was the Äran class? Was it a battleship, defence ship, frigate, cruiser or something else.
  • transporting King Gustav and Queen Victoria to summits Maybe add "the Swedish" before King? Some people (especially our Britsh readers) would think about the British Queen Victoria especially if you have a printed book (yes Wikipedia prints books) then you can't hoover nor there is no link to click on. Also we should mention here we are talking about Gustav V.
  • with the Emperors of Germany and Russia --> "with the emperors of Germany and Russia" and maybe add their names?
  • During World War I the ship was based If this is written in British English then it should be First World War by Ngram.
  • After being modernised and serving neutral Sweden again in World War II Same as above per Ngram.
  • in this case bringing the body of Prince Gustaf Adolf home from Denmark --> " in this case bringing the body of Prince Gustaf Adolf, Duke of Västerbotten home from Denmark"
  • home from Denmark after the air crash of 26 January 1947 --> "home from Denmark after the KLM Douglas DC-3 air crash of 26 January 1947 in Copenhagen"?
  • the tactical advantages of the Swedish archipelago Swedish archipelago goes to the Archipelago Sea? Do you not mean "Åland Islands"?
  • The article uses long tons why that? Didn't the Swedish Navy adopted "tonnes"?
  • for the cheapest option, the Swedish parliament voted --> "for the cheapest option, the Swedish Parliament (the Riksdag) voted"?
  • As built, Oscar II had a normal displacement of 4,273 long tons (4,342 t), displacing 4,584 long tons (4,658 t) at full load Link both "normal" and "full load".
  • The ship was powered by two four-cylinder triple expansion --> "The ship was powered by 2 four-cylinder triple expansion" or "The ship was powered by two 4-cylinder triple expansion" per MOS:NUMNOTES.
  • The engines were rated at 9,400 shp (7,000 kW) --> "The engines were rated at 9,400 shaft horsepower (7,000 kW)"
  • Steam was provided at 16.5 kg/m2 (3.4 lb/sq ft) by Link both units.
  • The guns fired 276 lb (125 kg) shells at a muzzle Were these American or British guns? Or otherwise switch English unit to metric unit as primary unit. Unless it's from a country who didn't recognise metric units like Australia or Canada.
  • muzzle velocity of 750 m (2,460 ft) per second "muzzle velocity of 750 metres per second (2,460 ft/s)"
  • There's a mix between metric and English units?
  • with a 67 m (219 ft 10 in)-long armoured Per WP:UNITSYMBOLS Units in compound adjectives should be fully written thus it should be written like this "with a 67-metre (219 ft 10 in) long armoured".
  • The main battery of Oscar II consisted of a pair --> "The main battery of her consisted of a pair"
  • Oscar II was first modernised in 1910 when a tripod mast --> "She was first modernised in 1910 when a tripod mast"
  • The last paragraph of the "Design" section looks better to be placed into the "Service" section.
  • The "Design" section looks also pretty long maybe split it into sub-sections?
  • upgrade took place in the run up to World War II --> "upgrade took place in the run-up to Second World War"
  • See -ise in "modernised" and -ize in "baptizing" one of the two should be used.
  • The ship was soon flying the flag, travelling to England in the summer Per MOS:SEASONS we should try to avoid this and use "local" or "northern summer" or mid-1907.
  • then returning in time for the king --> "then returning in time for the King"
  • royalty, leaving for Saint Petersburg on 29 April 1908 to take Prince Wilhelm --> "royalty, leaving for Saint Petersburg, Russia on 29 April 1908 to take Prince Wilhelm, Duke of Södermanland"
  • and transporting King Gustav to Sassnitz on 6 July 1909 where he met Wilhelm II --> "and transporting King Gustav V to Sassnitz on 6 July 1909 where he met Wilhelm II of Germany"
  • In the summer of 1912, Oscar II carried Again MOS:SEASONS and change "Oscar" into "she".
  • the king and Queen Victoria to Finland --> "the King and Queen Victoria of Sweden to Finland"
  • but returned to duties soon afterward American afterward per Ngram.
  • transport for the king's visit to Christian X of Denmark --> "transport for the King's visit to Christian X of Denmark"
  • for Victor Emmanuel III of Italy in July 1913 and President Poincaré of France Given name of the French President should be included in his first appearance.
  • When World War I started, the Swedish --> "When the First World War started in that same month, the Swedish"
  • fleet was mobilised with Oscar II as flagship --> "fleet was mobilised with her as flagship"
  • with the newer coastal defence ship Sverige --> "with the newer coastal defence ship HSwMS Sverige"
  • the German dreadnought battleships Rheinland and Westfalen --> "the German dreadnought battleships SMS Rheinland and Westfalen"
  • Oscar II was brought back into service in 1929 --> "She was brought back into service in 1929"
  • served as part of the Swedish Navy during World War II --> "served as part of the Swedish Navy during the Second World War"
  • Prince Gustaf Adolf is overlinked.
  • home after he died in an air crash at Copenhagen Airport --> "home after he died in a KLM Douglas DC-3 air crash at Copenhagen Airport"?
  • The ordered part is missing in the body while in the infobox says "23 September 1903"?
  • Cost is also missing in the body?
  • Laid down is also missing in the body?
  • Add first decommissioned (September 1918) and second commissioned in 1929 into the infobox.
  • 4,584 full load in the body vs 4,584 deep load?
  • Link both tons, normal, full load (or deep load; per above), shp, kW and are there links for the guns in the infobox?
  • Mention in the lead that she was decommissioned in September 1918 and recommissioned in 1929.

Phew, that was a lot. I think that's anything from me. No worries this is normal for new people in ARC and FAC. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is very comprehensive and incredibly helpful. I have amended the article following your suggestions. Can you please explain more about your ideas of subsections? There was an Armament subsection before but that was removed as part of the GA review. I have amended the tonnage but the mix between metric and imperial measures seems endemic in the literature. For example, many articles seem to cite different measures even for guns with the main battery often in inches and smaller weapons in millimetres, and speeds seem to be usually in knots. I have seen editors disagree about the gender of ships so have adjusted the grammar to avoid pronouns. I could not find wikipedia pages for the guns or full load so those remain unlinked. I could not find out how to add a second decommissioning date so I have not included the last point. simongraham (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Simongraham: What I think will work for the second decommissioning date will be to insert the line break syntax and then put the second one after that. See the code for the equipment parameter in 3rd Missouri Light Battery for an example. Hog Farm Bacon 13:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This is a really great learning experience. The article is now updated. simongraham (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G'day simongraham, just a note that CPA-5 is on a wikibreak. I will just check to see if all his points have been addressed and make a note about that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, for the closing coord, I have checked CPA-5's comments, have made a couple of tweaks where I can see what he meant, and I consider that his comments have now been addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No joy on any better description on the armor details in any English-language source that I can access.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking. simongraham (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

I looked at this pretty comprehensively at GAN, and only have a few suggested tweaks here or there:

Lead
Body
  • "Äran-class coastal defence ship", needs to be hyphenated as it is a composite adjective
  • for the power conversion, use lk=on to link kW
  • "Three 37 mm (1.5 in) M/98 guns"
  • where were the TTs located?
  • "It was 150 mm (5.9 in) thick amidships"
  • the armour info could do with a bit more granularity, for example, what parts of the deck were 66 mm and what parts 22 mm? Same with the turret armour: front, sides, back, roof?
  • for "flying the flag" perhaps link Goodwill tour, or perhaps Parsecboy has a better idea?
  • suggest "Due to the country's neutrality in the war, the vessel spent much of the war practicing firing and damage control."
  • "for a peaceful settlement that resulted in Germany gaining possession of the islands."
  • link Sweden during World War II for "as Sweden once again remained neutral"

That's all I could find this time around. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status here, @Simongraham:? I can't tell if you've responded to PM's comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Parsecboy:, @Peacemaker67: and @Sturmvogel 66:. These are all really helpful. The edits have been done, although I do not have any more granular information on the armour so any information that you can contribute would be most appreciated. simongraham (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good from me, supporting. For FAC, it would be good if some additional details about the armour could be located and added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Simongraham: Be advised that most reviewers only watchlist the review and not the article, so be sure to post any updates on the review page. Lemme see if I can find anything on the ship's armor and then I'll do my own review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. simongraham (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • In the infobox:
    • what kind of length is used? overall, between perpendiculars?
    • To minimize the size of the infobox, you don't need to list manufacturer or designation of propulsion equipment or weapons, just caliber/type unless for things like Yarrow boilers where they're a specific type of boiler design used by that builder.
    • Remember that the infobox is supposed to be a summary so delete four-cylinder
    • Link triple expansion engine, being sure to tell the reader that it's a steam engine.
    • Put the draught in ft and inches just like the rest of the conversions.
    • 450 mm does not equal 18 inches; ass a |1 to the template
    • You'll need to link all of the terms in the armour section. See the FA-class article French battleship Bouvet for one way to do that. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. I have updated the infobox using Bouvet as a template. Unfortunately, there are no wikipages for the original armament and I could not see a standard naming convention for Swedish naval guns so I have not created links for these, but am very happy to be corrected. simongraham (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • "the ship mounted a main battery of two 210 mm (8.3 in) Bofors guns mounted separately fore and aft" Would it be possible to avoid using "mounted" twice in one clause?
  • "During the First World War the ship was based at the Åland Islands between 19 February and 23 April 1918 supporting the Swedish invasion". This gives the unfortunate impression that the First World War lasted from 19 February to 23 April 1918.
  • "see what future ships should be requested to meet the country's needs". "be requested" is odd phraseology. Perhaps 'were required'?
  • "a vessel like that being constructed abroad". Consider "like that" → 'similar to those'.
  • "Two tubes for 450 mm (18 in) torpedoes were fitted below the waterline." Is it known where?
  • "with armour 100 mm thick". Any reason why this is not converted?
  • "visiting ports in many countries, as well as". "as well as" → 'including'.

A fine piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you. That is very kind. These are very good suggestions. Unfortunately I know no more about where the torpedo tubes were apart from below the waterline.
Ah well. If it's not in the sources, it can't be helped.

The conversion is omitted because it is already mentioned in the previous sentence. Do you think it needs to be added?

There is a school of thought that once a specific measurement has been converted in an article it doesn't need to be repeated, so that is fine.

simongraham (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle[edit]

Ah, the Scandinavian coastal defence ships, very underrated! Glad to see a good article on one. My comments:

  • The commission looked at developments in other countries, particularly the escalating Anglo-German naval arms race, and decided that instead of creating a vessel like that being constructed abroad, Is this an allusion to battleships?
  • However, as well as both sides in the Russian Civil War, Germany was also interested in gaining the islands as part of a wider strategy to control the Baltic Sea and sent a substantial fleet as well. I think this means that the belligerents in the Russian Civil War were interested in the Islands. Perhaps split into two sentences or revise for clarity.
  • Sometimes people take portions or mementos of large ships (bells, steering wheels, propellers, artillery pieces) and save them for memorials and whatnot. Is it known if any pieces of the ship were saved for historical preservation after it was scrapped?

-Indy beetle (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you. These are great points. I have not seen any memorabilia but they would be interesting to photograph if there are any extant too. simongraham (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comments have been addressed, supporting. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Parsecboy[edit]

I see you've gotten a few reviews lately, so some of these points may be redundant:

  • The design section is a bit long - I generally prefer to break it up with subsections where appropriate (as in Sturmvogel's example Bouvet)
  • Why do you have some modernization info in the design section and more in the service section? I've found that listing a bunch of technical details in the service section bogs down the narrative and it's better to put them in the design section. I'd combine all of the technical details into a modifications/refits/etc. subsection and then just mention the refits in passing in the service section (HMS Ramillies (07) is an example of what I mean).
  • "the ship saw action" and later "but saw limited action" - in this context, to "see action" means to actively participate in a battle. Did Oscar II conduct any bombardments during the Aalands operation in 1918? And I'm guessing the second one should be "but saw no action", as I can't recall the Swedish Navy being actively involved in any actions in the Baltic during WWII
  • " finally departing on 23 April.[25]." - there's a stray period after the footnote
  • "apart from a brief period at the end of 1923 and start of 1924" - I'd kick this clause to the end of the sentence and shorten it slightly to "apart from a brief period in late 1923 and early 1924"
  • Clarify what country Portsmouth is in - lots of people have poor geographical knowledge
  • I came across this article, which has some details on the ship's post-decommissioning uses
  • Warship 1996 has an article on the Swedish coastal defense ships that may be of use - I think @Sturmvogel 66: has a copy of the book and might be able to get you scans. Parsecboy (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for some excellent points, and particularly for the article in the Naval Training Bulletin. I have amended the article accordingly. I have used slightly different subsections to Bouvet and Ramillies as it seemed that separating armament and armour led to very short sections. However, please do tell me if these need to be changed. simongraham (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2020 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Spanish battleship España[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Spanish battleship España (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another member of the small and ill-fated Spanish contingent, España was the first member of her class to be completed, the only one finished before the start of World War I, and as a result, the only European dreadnought battleship to avoid the conflict. The ship's luck did not hold out for long, and in 1923, she ran aground off the coast of Spanish Morocco and could not be freed. Some of the ship's guns were salvaged and employed as coastal artillery until the 1990s, and one is still on display. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hog Farm[edit]

  • Add a short description, it helps vaguely with some stuff.
    • Done, but doesn't Wikidata do this? I've seen people adding them to articles I watch to override the Wikidata generated one, but I don't really understand the purpose (if the Wikidata one isn't good enough, shouldn't that one be fixed?)
      • In this case, the Wikidata description doesn't exist
  • "The ship was in the early 1910s as part of a naval construction program" - I do believe you're missing a word here.
    • Fixed
  • "during which she accidentally ran aground and was seriously damaged that necessitated significant repairs before she could return to Spain" - this just doesn't read smoothly to me. Can this be rephrased?
    • Reworked, see how that reads now
      • Much better
  • "work on lightening the ship was nearly completion when" - Should be completed, not completion
    • Whoops!
  • You don't explicitly state that the commissioned date was 23 October 1913, you just state that work ended then. It would be best if this were stated directly.
    • Good catch
  • "The ship embarked on a major cruise to South Africa in 1920" - I'm assuming you mean South America, as a 1920 cruise to South America is mentioned, but the word Africa appears nowhere in the article.
    • Yes, fixed
  • "After the overthrow of King Alfonso XIII, his namesake ship Alfonso XIII, was renamed España in April 1931." - I'm not convinced the second comma is needed.
    • Removed
  • Images could use alt text
    • Added

That's all I see right now. Good work. Hog Farm Bacon 03:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I'm trying to do what I can to keep the ACR line rolling, especially since I've recently added two nominations myself. Hog Farm Bacon 01:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I need to get back to that myself. Parsecboy (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

File:Spanish battleship España sandwiching screenshot.png
Sandwiching screenshot
  • The images are all free.
  • Sandwiching between the diagram and the infobox is an issue—see image.
    • As at the FAC for Alfonso XIII, this depends on what resolution you're using, and I don't really want to get into the game of moving an image because it doesn't work for one person (which will inevitably create issues for others).
  • Need reliable source for File:Acorazado España (en 1913).svg and File:Acorazado España (en 1923).svg
    • Added

(t · c) buidhe 01:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buidhe. Parsecboy (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Nice article. A few comments:

Lead and infobox
  • suggest "España was the lead ship of the España class of Spanish dreadnought battleships, the two other ships being Alfonso XIII and Jaime I."
    • Works for me
  • suggest "The ship was built in the early 1910s in the context of closer Spanish relations with Britain and France, as part of a naval construction program to rebuild the fleet after the losses of the Spanish–American War."
    • Done
  • for "Spain remained neutral" link Spain during World War I
    • Done
  • vary significant in "significant damage that required significant repairs" extensive?
    • I think I have a tendency to overuse "significant" that I need to work on ;)
  • link nmi in the infobox
    • Done
Body
  • lk=on to link kW
    • Done
  • "though Italy initially declared neutrality"
    • Good point
  • "to do the same. The Italians later joined the Allies the following year, and as a result, España and her sisters were the only European dreadnoughts to avoid the war."
    • Added
  • "Once their third sister, Jaime I was completed by 1921, they were organized as the 1st Squadron of the fleet. Later in the 1920s, the three España-class ships were transferred to the Training Squadron." seems out of place chronologically
    • Good point - moved down

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM Parsecboy (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

This hard-luck class of battleships always makes for interesting reading. I suspect that there's a story here about the sheer scale of the technical competence needed to successfully operate complex military hardware in demanding circumstances (a topic the more technical types of Australian military historians tend to stress as being a key concern for the Australian military). The article is in good shape, and I have the following comments:

  • " built in the early 1910s as part of a naval construction program to rebuild" - tweak to avoid repeating 'built/build'
    • Rebuild -> restore (though I'm not sure I love that solution - if you have any better ideas, I'd be happy to hear)
  • "Jaime Janer Róbinson, upon whom Poincaré later conferred the Légion d'honneur in 1914" - perhaps briefly note the circumstances for which this was awarded (was it due to his service in the Spanish Navy, or was he fighting for France?)
    • Clarified
  • "the Spanish decided " - I'd suggest tweaking this to 'the Navy decided' or similar
    • Done
  • "several violent storms hit the ship and caused further damage on 19 November" - this reads awkwardly - were there really several storms on the same day?
    • Good catch - that was clearer before I rewrote it, "by" is more accurate
  • The material on the use of guns is a bit unclear. Am I right in reading this as the guns having been mounted as coastal artillery prior to them being transferred to Caditz in 1953? If so, I'd suggest tweaking to make this clearer.
    • The problem is, the sources are unclear - McGovern's article is primarily focused on the batteries that guarded the Strait of Gibraltar and only mentions the battery at Cadiz as sort of a tangent. These accounted for only 3 of the ship's 8 guns, but what was done with the others (or all 8 during the almost 30 years between the ship's loss and the installation at Cadiz) I don't know.
  • Do we know what happened to the ship's wreck? Was it scrapped in-situ, or simply abandoned?
    • That I don't know - Fernandez et. al. don't go into any detail as to what happened after the Navy left it. I did come across a mention in the 4/1973 Warship International that states that "The armament and some equipment was salved but the hull itself was abandoned as beyond salvage. The guns were later used as shore batteries." This is representative of the general problem with this and the above point - these were fairly obscure ships even among early 20th century battleships and their fates are not well-documented in English, even in more detailed accounts like Fernandez et. al. or Rodriguez Gonzalez.
  • Was there an inquiry into the grounding and loss of the ship? What did it find if so? (presumably the captain and other responsible officers were sacked given that every navy seems to do this following a non-trivial grounding and lots do it after even minor incidents). Nick-D (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure there was, but I haven't seen any reference to it. Thanks Nick. Parsecboy (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough on this issue and the others above where sources are limited. My comments are now addressed, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed[edit]

Lead

  • in the context of closer Spanish relations with Britain and France. I appreciate that this is as a result of feedback from a previous reviewer, but I'm struggling to understand what this means from the lead alone. After reading the background, I suggest rephrasing to something like "and in context of Spain coming to a cooperative defensive agreement with Britain and France."
    • See if how it reads now works for you
  • In the late 1910s, she served in the 1st Squadron In the service section, it seems to imply the 1st Squadron was formed in 1921 when the thrid ship of the class was finished.
    • Good catch, fixed in the body
  • during which she accidentally ran aground. The accident caused significant damage that required significant repairs... There is a bit of repetition of language. Suggest rephrasing along the lines of "This incident caused significant damage that required major repairs..."
    • Fixed

Design

  • I feel the first paragraph should be in its own section as it is much more "Background". But would that be quite inconsistent with other battleship articles? If it stays, can I suggest ending the first paragraph along the lines of "quickly decided to build their own dreadnoughts, the first of which was España." The transition between the first and second paragraphs is quite jarring otherwise.
    • This is generally how I do it - I don't really like one-paragraph sections if I can at all avoid them. I've added your suggestion.
  • Depending on the 1st Squadron issue mentioned above, should the material about the squadron organisation be moved to follow that of the South American tour?

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zawed Parsecboy (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Is there a publisher location for Fizsimmons?
    • Added
  • Aside from the above, the bibliographic formatting is consistent
  • The sources are all high-quality RS.
  • The ISBN for Conways links to a 1997 edition--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Worldcat is confused - the ISBN is the converted 11-digit one that's in my copy. Parsecboy (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2020 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

3rd Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

3rd Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

After a very thorough GA review by Sturmvogel 66 and a little bit of post-GANR work of my own, I think this meets/is close to meeting the A-Class criteria. This unit was a scrappy ACW regiment that was in service for about a year and a half. After fighting hard at two battles in 1862 and the Vicksburg campaign, the unit was so decimated it had to be consolidated with another unit in late 1863. A note on the Organization section: there's several schools of how to handle this, so I'm willing to rework this section to include more/less detail so long as a consensus on what should be included is formed. Hog Farm Bacon 21:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Nice work thus far. A few comments:

Lead
  • not directly for this article, but the Battle of Farmington, Mississippi should be at Battle of Farmington (Mississippi), and in the lead of this article, "While stationed at Corinth, Mississippi, the regiment played a minor role in the Battle of Farmington before the Confederate evacuation of the town." as we have already established the unit was at Corinth and therefore in Mississippi
    • Created the redirect, and used piped links at both usages. FWIW, the Battle of Farmington is a section in the Siege of Corinth article, not it's own page
  • "at theat point"
    • Done
  • "the Confederate defensive works"
    • Done
  • "After Union infantry was landed in Mississippi" was this Grant's Army of the Tennessee? Was it only infantry at this point?
    • Giving the full army name, since there was definitely artillery in the landing, too.
Body
  • add a main template to the top of the Background section for Missouri in the American Civil War
    • Done
  • Novemeber
    • Oopsy. Fixed.
  • suggest "had previously held a vote in Jefferson City in July rejecting secession"
    • Done
  • link Regiment#United States Army and company (military unit)
    • Done
  • suggest "while the regiment was stationed at Springfield" if that is right?
    • Yes, that would be correct. The previous wording apparently was the result of a botched attempt at removing a duplink of Springfield.
  • "Price's Ddivision, which contained Little's Bbrigade" there are other examples like Gates' Brigade and Green's Brigade
    • @Peacemaker67: - Sturmvogel 66 requested this in the GANR. I'm ambivalent on this, although part of me does wonder if formally organized Confederate units should have the capitalization: Most armies use 1st Division, 2nd Brigade, etc. but the Confederates named units after their commanders, so Gates' Brigade was the literal name of the unit. Hog Farm Bacon 04:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely convinced by a Google Books search, seems the sources are split on this one. One reason I hesitate is that these brigades all seem to be ad hoc temporary formations, like the ACW divisions, with the constituent regiments or brigades changing constantly, along with the commanders. The lack of articles for these higher-level formations also mitigates against it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. That makes sense. I've corrected the ones I found, hopefully I caught them all. Hog Farm Bacon 02:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Colonel Rives had been mortally wounded"
    • Done
  • "the regiment was present at the Battle of Farmington, Mississippi"
    • Done
  • "the 2nd and 5th Missouri Infantry Regiments"
    • Done
  • "but only the 2nd Missouri Infantry of Gates' Brigade was heavily engaged" we already know what brigade
    • Done
  • is W. H. Moore the same Colonel William H. Moore (1829–1862) who was formerly the colonel of 43rd Mississippi Infantry and who was mortally wounded at Corinth?
    • Yeah. Spelled out rank and full name
  • began asn assault
    • Fixed
  • "However, Colonel Pritchard was shot in the shoulder and had to be carried off the field; Major Hubbell took command of the regiment."
    • Done
  • "Pritchard's wound proved to be mortal"
    • Done
  • is Lieutenant Colonel Gause the same as William R. Gause? Did he become lieutenant colonel after Rives was wounded or was he transferred in at the time of Pritchard's wounding?
    • Yep, it's William R. I've specified his origins to. For some reason, they elevated him from company command to Lt. Col, skipping Hubbell. I haven't found a source that states why yet, it would be interesting to know.
  • is there no live link for New Carthage, Louisiana? What about moving the link forward and changing "in Tensas Parish" to "nearby"?
    • New Carthage probably passes WP:GEOLAND as a former recognized settlement, but nobody's volunteered to write that article in the last 15 years, and I'm not the one to do it, so I'll link Tensas Parish in lieu of New Carthage and then make the recommended change later
  • "The Confederates then fell back"
    • Done. Probably should've sent this one through GOCE before nominating
  • "Grant's army ofn May 16"
    • Done
  • "two keys battlefield landmarkslocations."
    • Done
  • "The regiment then entered the defensive works at Vicksburg"
    • Done
  • suggest linking Siege of Vicksburg with "besieged by Union forces" rather than using the siege link
    • Done
  • "men of the 6th, 8th, and 11th Missouri Infantry Regiments"
    • Done
  • "the Union soldiers if they wanted to surrender"
    • Done
  • "and then threw the explosive shells into the Union position as impromptuimprovised hand grenades."
    • Done
  • "as Colonel Gause"
    • Done

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Peacemaker67: - I've replied to everything so far. In hindsight, this one wasn't quite in the shape I thought it was, a GOCE copy edit would have done it wonders. Hog Farm Bacon 02:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good, never hurts to ask GOCE to have a look, although results can be patchy. Supporting, great work. A final word, Tucker 1993 is a bit weak as a source as it seems to be popular history, so wherever possible, except for routine material like unit movements, you should try to replace it. For example, a statement like "Despite initial success, the weight of superior Union numbers and effective Union artillery fire drove the Confederates back to the cover of a creek bank" wouldn't hurt to have another perspective as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

  • File:TRANS-MISSISSIPPI CIVIL WAR.svg needs a reliable source for info
  • All media is free. (t · c) buidhe 10:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Buidhe: - I've replaced the user-generated map with a Hal Jespersen map of Second Corinth. This map doesn't have a source link, but Jespersen is a professional cartographer whose maps have been published in academic sources, so I think Jespersen is an acceptable map source. Hog Farm Bacon 23:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review—pass
  • All of the sources look at least minimally reliable, however, I would agree with Peacemaker that it would be better to back up the popular history sources with additional citations.
  • No source checks done as I do not have any of these books. (t · c) buidhe 19:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Peacemaker67: I'll get on the source supporting once I get the comments at the Newtonia fac worked out. Hog Farm Bacon 19:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Buidhe and Peacemaker67: - I've used a couple sources to try to back up Tucker. Unfortunately, this didn't help much with the siege part, as the Vicksburg sources I have only talk about the First Missouri Brigade in general, and since this regiment was frequently held as the brigade reserve, they aren't helpful for determining events at the regimental level. Would y'all like to take a look at the new sources to check reliability of them? Hog Farm Bacon 01:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see any issues with them, esp. since they're used to back up info. (t · c) buidhe 06:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ykraps[edit]

Lead:

  • "The regiment was officially mustered in on January 17" - Some sort of typo? Lose the 'in'.
    • Went with "mustered into service", these regiments often existed as semi-organized groups of half-armed men before officially organizing
  • Can we pipe the locations so we don't get the state name? The number of mentions of Mississippi makes the lead sound somewhat repetitive. No biggie if you disagree though.
    • Two of the Mississippis have been removed, I think the other two help clarify the geographic context because they're in the nature of transfers
      • Fair enough.
  • The word confederate also crops up with annoying regularity. It seems somewhat redundant in the sentence, "...while serving as part of the Confederate rear guard". We know it's a Confederate unit so I can't imagine anyone thinking it fought in a Union rear guard action. Also, we don't really need it in the sentence, "On July 4, the Confederate garrison of Vicksburg surrendered", for the same reason.
    • I've removed two or three uses, is that better?
      • Much better.

More to come.--Ykraps (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background and formation:

  • "...supported secession and sent pro-secession elements...". What about saying sympathetic elements to avoid the close repetition?
    • Done, good idea
  • "Jackson responded on May 12 by forming the Missouri State Guard, a pro-secession militia unit". I don’t think we need pro-secession here. Readers should know by now where Jackson's sympathies lie.
    • Done
  • "Initially, the unit was planned to be named the 2nd Missouri Infantry Regiment...." Not sure about the grammar here. Shouldn't it be, "Initially it was planned to name the unit..."?
    • Done
  • "While at Neosho in November, Jackson and the pro-secession legislators voted to secede from the United States, joining the Confederate States of America as a government-in-exile. The anti-secession elements of the state legislature had previously held a vote in Jefferson City in July rejecting secession". I'm struggling with this. It sounds like the pro-secessionists voted to leave and the anti-secessionists voted to stay, which seems an obvious and therefore pointless thing to say. Is there more to it than that?
Could it be rewritten to sound less like it's labouring the point? Something like, "While at Neosho in November, Jackson and his supporters voted to join the Confederate States of America, as a government-in-exile. The anti-secessionists had already reaffirmed their position with a vote in Jefferson City in July".
    • Rephrased and clarified that there were two governments claiming Missouri now, which was the whole point of these sentences.

Pea Ridge:

  • "On February 12, 1862, the regiment left Springfield for Cove Creek, Arkansas, due to Union pressure against Springfield". I don't think there is a need to say 'against Springfield'. I think that is implied.
Or you could rewrite as, "Union pressure against Springfield caused the regiment to leave for Cove Creek, Arkansas, on February 12, 1862", to avoid the repetition.
Or combine with the following sentence to make, "Union pressure against Springfield forced the 3rd Missouri to fight a rear guard action in their retreat to Cove Creek, Arkansas, on February 12, 1862".
    • Substantially rewritten to avoid duplicating Springfield and to make it clearer that the whole Confederate force at Springfield withdrew
  • "During the Battle of Pea Ridge on March 7 and 8..." The mention of Pea Ridge in the previous sentence causes some repetition. I would be inclined to say something like, "During the subsequent battle...." You can introduce a link to the battle by adding a {{main|Battle of Pea Ridge}} template at the top of the section.
    • Done
  • There are a number of sentences in this section beginning with 'during'. You could change "During the subsequent battle..." to "At the subsequent battle...", and "During the morning of March 7...", could be changed to "On the morning..."
    • Reworded away two of the durings.
  • "During the fighting, the 3rd Missouri Infantry, led from the front by Rives, charged successfully before becoming disorganized and halting". A charge that becomes disorganised and halts doesn't sound successful to me. Was it considered successful because they drove the enemy back but then were unable to press the advantage when they became disorganised? What does the source say?
    • Clarified
  • Also, is it better to say "At one point during the fighting..." rather than simply during, which could be taken to mean throughout?
    • Done
  • "...the regiment was in the First Missouri Brigade, which was commanded by Colonel Lewis Henry Little. Also in Little's brigade were the 2nd Missouri Infantry Regiment...." I would be inclined to say, "commanded by Colonel Lewis Henry Little, and included the 2nd Missouri Infantry Regiment..." I know this makes the sentence longer but the term 'Little's Brigade' is used a lot in this section.
    • I've nixed the order of battle sentence as off-topic

Second Corinth:

  • "...was soon sent to Corinth, Mississippi. On May 5, while at Corinth, a roll call..." You could say, "...was soon sent to Corinth, Mississippi where, on May 5, a roll call..." Saves repetition of Corinth and starting another sentence with 'on'.
    • Done
  • "In late May, the Confederates evacuated Corinth". Another Easter egg. You could put "In late May, the Siege of Corinth ended when the Confederates evacuated". Or similar.
    • Done
  • Similar issue as before with constant repetition of Gates' Brigade. Instead of, "The other units of Gates' brigade were.." what about saying, "The other units under Gates..."?
    • As above with Pea Ridge, I've removed the OOB sentence
  • "Price determined not to attempt a large-scale assault" has a slightly different meaning to "Price was determined", so check what you mean here. The former means he decided not to, the latter means he was adamant that it shouldn't happen.
    • I mean the former
  • "Gates' brigade was able to capture Battery Powell. A Union counterattack was able to drive Gates' brigade from the field". Perhaps say, "Gates' brigade was able to capture Battery Powell before being driven from the field by a Union counterattack". Saves repetition of 'Gates' Brigade' and 'able to'.
    • Done, with a slightly different phrasing
  • "Hubbell reported that most of the 3rd Missouri Infantry broke and routed ..." Should it be was routed?
    • I think it's acceptable is as, but I've changed it anyway

Grand Gulf, Port Gibson, and Champion Hill:

  • "While in Louisiana, the Missourians encamped near Bayou Vidal in Tensas Parish". Could this be added to the previous sentence? "On April 5, the 3rd Missouri Infantry, as part of a larger force, was moved across the Mississippi River into Louisiana, setting up camp near Bayou Vidal in Tensas Parish". Just a suggestion.
    • Done
  • "On April 17, the arrival of elements of the Union Navy forced..." Only because you've used 'element' in the previous sentence, could it be changed to 'a section' or 'part of' here.
    • Went with the even simpler "the arrival of Union Navy ships"
      • Even better.
  • Lots of repetition of Grand Gulf: "...rejoined the defenses at Grand Gulf", "At the Battle of Grand Gulf...", "The unit's position at Grand Gulf...", "The regiment lost one man killed and three wounded at Grand Gulf", "The Confederate victory at Grand Gulf prevented Union Major General Ulysses S. Grant from landing a force at Grand Gulf", "Brigadier General John S. Bowen, the Confederate commander at Grand Gulf..." Crops up seven times in six consecutive sentences. One sentence contains two occurrences. Some suggestions below:
  • "The regiment lost one man killed and three wounded at Grand Gulf". Could be changed to "...at the battle" or "...in the engagement"
    • Done
*"The Confederate victory at Grand Gulf prevented Union Major General Ulysses S. Grant from landing a force at Grand Gulf". As it's obvious we are discussing the Battle at Grand Gulf, I don't think either mention is necessary here. You could just say, "The Confederate victory prevented Union Major General Ulysses S. Grant from landing a force".
    • Eliminated both usages
  • "The unit's position at Grand Gulf allowed the men to shoot through the portholes of the Union Navy ships shelling the Confederate position". It's not entirely clear which men are shooting through the portholes but I'm guessing it's the Confederates. What about "From its position the unit was able to shoot through...." That also disposes of one use of Grand Gulf.
    • Did two things here. Dropped the Grand Gulf, and also replaced through with into

Port Gibson:

  • "....supported the Confederate left flank". As they're unlikely to support the Union flank, I think we can lose 'Confederate' here.
    • Not done. I think it helps with the contrast against the mentions of the Union right flank a couple sentences later. If you feel really strongly about this, I'm willing to change it
      • Fair enough.
  • "...the attack to fall. The attack fell..." sounds awkward to my ears. What about saying "However, this was noticed by Union leadership and troops were sent to support the supposed area under threat"?
    • I just remove "to fall", as it's not really adding anything to the sentence and I think it works without it
  • "The attack fell upon a Union line composed of the brigades of Colonel James R. Slack and Brigadier General George F. McGinnis and five artillery batteries. A canebrake provided cover for the Confederate attack". Could be combined in one sentence. For example, "A canebrake provided cover for the attack, which fell on a Union line composed of the brigades of..."
    • Done

Big Black River Bridge and the Siege of Vicksburg:

  • "...was used as part of a rear guard..." Do we need 'used as' here?
    • Nope. Removed
  • "The regiment then entered the defensive works at Vicksburg, which were besieged by Union forces". Unless it was already under siege and the regiment broke through the siege to the defensive works, I would say, "which were then besieged".
    • Good catch. Fixed
  • "...as a reserve when Union forces attack the Confederate line on May 19". To save some repetition, could this just say, "...as a reserve when Union forces attacked on May 19"?
    • Done
  • "On May 22, the men of the regiment manned the Confederate line at a point known as the Stockade Redan. The regiment, as well as other elements of the First Missouri Brigade, fought off Union attacks against the position". What about combining these sentences thus, "On May 22, the men of the regiment manned the Confederate line at a point known as the Stockade Redan where, with other elements of the First Missouri Brigade, they fought off Union attacks".
    • Done
  • "...the regiment had suffered 55 casualties during the siege". Don't think we need 'during the siege' here.
    • Removed
  • "...although about 100 men deserted the regiment". Don't think we need 'the regiment'.
    • Removed

Legacy:

  • "...during the process of consolidating the regiment...." Don't think we need 'the regiment' here either.
    • Done
  • Was it only the 3rd Missouri Infantry that was reduced to four companies or was it the combined 3rd and 5th that was reduced to four companies?
    • Only the 3rd.
      • I would be inclined to say, "...became Companies B, D, E, and H within the consolidated regiment", rather than 'of' which makes it sound like there were only four companies in total.
        • Done
  • "On November 30, the regiment fought at the Battle of Franklin, where it lost 113 of the approximately 150 remaining in the regiment". This sounds like the new consolidated regiment only had 150 soldiers in it at the start of the battle. Is that right? Or are we now talking about the remnants of the old 3rd Missouri?
    • Yes, the new regiment only had 150 men in it to start the battle. It was very depletedd
      • Okay then. Just sounded like a tiny number for a regiment.

Commanders:

  • "...all of whom were no longer with the regiment...". Isn't it more usual to say, "....none of whom were with the regiment...". No biggie, just sounds unusual to me.
    • Done

General:

  • I know Americans like to leave a double space after their full stops (periods) but I'm pretty sure the MOS says not to.
Actually, I don't think it matters. Other than wasting time and space, of course. See MOS:DOUBLE SPACE.
The MOS doesn't disallow it. It's a habit I've done since I learned to type, so since the MOS is neutral on it, I don't feel the need to go through and change it all.
@Ykraps: - I've responded to everything you've brought up so far. Anything further you have? My prose in this one is a touch rougher than in my other two A-Class nominations. Hog Farm Bacon 15:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this is taking so long but very nearly there now.--Ykraps (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ykraps: - All replied to so far. It's okay that it's taking forever, I'm not in a hurry. I hope to get to the HMS Pearl article, but I'm a bit busy in RL right now, so it might take me awhile to get to that one. Hog Farm Bacon 01:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No rush on HMS Pearl either; I'm away next week and may not have internet access.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ykraps: - Got these done, as well. Hog Farm Bacon 14:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a small copyedit here [[43]] to remove some repetition of 'the regiment' but feel free to revert if you don't approve; I am supporting either way. Thanks for your perseverance.--Ykraps (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Tell the reader that Pea Ridge was fought in Arkansas in the lede, otherwise they're gonna assume that it's in Missouri.
    • Done
  • Trailing comma after Grand Gulf, Mississippi
    • Done, I always forget those
  • against Vicksburg on May 16 comma after Vicksburg
    • Done
  • provide an angle of attack against Vicksburg I don't understand this--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rephrased
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 Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Saseno[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

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

Toolbox

A good example of guerre de course in the Middle Ages and the only Genoese success in the War of Saint Sabas, this battle was won by clever strategy rather than force of arms. It was recently expanded to GA, and I feel confident that it is quite complete and meets the A-class criteria. There's always room for improvement, of course, so thanks in advance to all who take the time to comment here. Constantine ✍ 19:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

All images are free (t · c) buidhe 22:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Interesting article. I have a few comments:

Lead and infobox
Then link that, not modern Albania. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This hasn't been done in the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • given they were both republics, "the Republic's economy" isn't clear. How about "to the Venetian economy"
    • Excellent point, done
  • suggest "and in 1270 the two states concluded a truce"
    • Done
  • it would be good to put either a ship image or a location map in the infobox
    • Done
  • suggest "|result=Genoese victory, with most of the Venetian convoy being captured or sunk"
    • Done
  • I find the Italian ship names unhelpful, and suggest: 13 taride galleys, 1 saetta scouting galley, 1 panzione transport ship, 3 navi large transport ships, same goes for the mentions in the body
    • They are the technical terms used in English literature as well, though. Have adopted this for the infobox as it provides easy overview, but in the main article, I prefer to stick by the current practice.
Body
  • "of Venice and Genoa broke out in 1256 over access"
    • Done
  • consider linking convoy
    • Done
  • "During this period, the Republic of Venice"
    • Prefer not; this was very much a state-controlled enterprise, not just the city generally
  • link Aegean Sea
    • Done
  • "with a crew of 3,500 men."→"crewed by 3,500 men."
    • Done
  • "and there await"
    • Done
  • the section heading "Campaign" doesn't work. This is apparently a "campaign" but a "Battle" with a preliminary deception plan
    • Disagree: this was a seasonal campaign, which began in June with the Genoese fleet's sailing, culminated in a major naval battle (Saseno) in mid-August, and includes Barozzi's attack on Tyre in early September. Given the nature of naval warfare at the time, which was highly seasonal, you should not expect multi-year (or even multi-engagement) campaigns like you would see in more recent centuries.
My point is that it is the article is titled battle and a campaign isn't mention anywhere, so the main section of the body should be about the battle itself. The other stuff is deception operations. Perhaps change the structure to get rid of the Campaign heading and just have two sections, "Deception" and "Battle". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done
  • "Grillo set sail in June, with strict orders to sail to the Levant." Why? Wasn't his job to intercept and capture the convoy? How was he going to do that in the Levant?
    • Good point, will have to look into that.
      • Have clarified that. Please have a look.
  • link Acre, Israel
    • Done
  • link Annali Genovesi
    • Done. Had them already linked, but then moved this part into a footnote.
  • "and that he was unlikely to achieve anything worthwhile there" and "deviating from the orders he had been given" again, it isn't clear what his orders were.
    • As above, will look into that and rewrite accordingly
  • link marines
    • Done
  • "off the island of Saseno, off the coast of the Despotate of Epirus (today..."
    • Per above
  • "the swift and agile Genoese galleys"
    • Done
  • "According to the sources," as everything should be
    • Hmmm, yes, I wanted to point out that this is indeed what the medieval sources report; the story is a bit unlikely, after all. Changed slightly to this effect.
  • link Fire ship
    • Done
  • say Ragusa is in the southern Adriatic
    • Done
  • for neatness, suggest numerical ordering of citations, ie [29][30][17]→.[17][29][30], there is another example
    • Done
  • link Doge of Venice and perhaps name him?
    • Good point, done

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Arriving beforeat Tyre"
    • Done

That's it. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67, I've dealt with the final points raised above. Please have a look. Looking forward to any further comments. Constantine ✍ 12:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much clearer now regarding what the sources say about the orders. Supporting, but suggest you use the same piped link for Albania in the lead that you now use in the infobox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • All of the sources look reliable enough for what they're cited for, and the source balance looks good. I spot checked a few of the Weil citations, and they were good, although there was a spelling difference in one: Canale vs Canal. Hog Farm Bacon 03:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hog Farm[edit]

I'll take a look at this. Hog Farm Bacon 14:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • " on 14 August 1264 off Saseno island off the coast of Albania," - Is there a way to reduce this to only using one "off", to eliminate the close repitition?
    • Done
  • Link galleys in the lead
    • Done
  • "The importance of these convoys to the Venetian economy can hardly be overstated:" - Is this included on pages 13 and 14 of Manfroni, or is just the quote from there?
    • Just the quote
  • "Annali Genovesi" - Move the link from the second mention to the first
    • Done
  • "with the east for that year.[20]due east[36][37]" - Where does the doubly-cited sentence fragment "due east" come from? It seems like it shouldn't be here
    • A copy-paste slip. Removed.
  • " assisted by his subaltern officers" - Subaltern is also a military rank itself, which is what I thought of first. Either use a different word or link to subaltern on Wikitionary.
    • Done
  • " he encountered a Genoese merchantman carrying 11,000 bezants worth of silk, the Oliva, in the harbour." - move ", the Oliva" to between merchantman and carrying
    • Done

Very nice work. That's all the comments I have, I believe. Hog Farm Bacon 15:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hog Farm. Please have a look at the changes, and if there is anything else, let me know. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 15:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • "between the fleet of the Republic of Genoa". Just checking that it was the entire fleet, and not just a fleet.
    • Hmmm, good point. Both are actually correct, in the sense that it was the fleet currently operational, but it was certainly not every ship Genoa possessed. Changed to a to be on the same side
  • "The Genoese had experienced only defeats". This comes a bit out of nowhere. Maybe 'So far in the war the Genoese had experienced only defeats' or something similar?
    • Changed
  • Background: I am not sure about that quote and MOS:QUOTE "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate".
    • I agree and considered that, but it would be either very close paraphrasing due to the denseness of the information conveyed, or adding a lot of pointless verbiage, and hence counterproductive.
  • "With its victories in the Battle of Acre in 1258 and again in the Battle of Settepozzi in 1263" Either "victories" → "victory" or delete "again".
    • Changed.
  • "During this period". Which period? Do you mean during the war? If so, it may be clearer to say so.
    • Clarified.
  • "while the rest sailed southeast". "rest" → either 'other' or 'others'.
    • Fixed
  • "of keeping their commercial rivals away from Byzantine-held lands and to prevent passage". Either "of keeping" → 'to keep' or "to prevent passage" → "preventing passage".
    • Fixed.
  • "who delayed the sailing of the convoy" If known, could we insert 'spring' or 'late-summer' before "convoy"?
    • Good point, added.
  • Note b: "while the Annali Genovesi record 44 galleys plus further eight navi and taride" "record" → 'records'; insert 'a' after "plus".
    • Fixed.
  • "he moved his fleet east". North east? (Or even north.)
    • Changed.
  • "captured the entire Genoese battle fleet at the Battle of Trapani. At the same time". I don't think that you actually mean "At the same time".
    • Fixed.

Great stuff, and a fascinating read. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Gog the Mild, glad you enjoyed it. I've fixed most of the points you remarked on, anything else? Constantine ✍ 19:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. That all looks very sound. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2020 (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) 18:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another article in my series of Missouri Confederate units. This one's been a tough one to work on, as there's not much in the way of sourcing to go by. A minor unit that was active in one campaign, it played a minor role in a few minor actions. The unit's role at the Second Battle of Lexington and the Battle of Little Blue River aren't as fleshed-out as I would like, but I can find nothing in reliable sources anywhere that I've looked online or in my print books that discuss this unit's role at those battles, except for a few sentences in McGhee's book cited in the article. Not even the Official Records deal with those details. The commander of the unit didn't even issue official reports. As a result, I'm pretty confident that I've included all of the detail that can be reasonably added on this subject. Hog Farm Bacon 05:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • No issues with the one map.
  • Are there any images that could be added? I looked at Slayback's bio and we don't seem to have an image of him
    • I can't find an image of Slayback quickly that's definitely PD, simply because first date of publishing isn't going to be recorded usually. However, I did find an image of Byram's Ford, which is a point in one of the battles.
      • I tracked down this book published by Slayback's wife in 1883 that has a portrait of him - it's not a great image, but it might be all we've got. Parsecboy (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • You may want to standardize ISBN formatting (https://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter will convert from 9 to 13 and vice versa)
    • Converted all to ISBN 13
  • Footnotes and references are otherwise standardized
  • I had a look at McGhee and have no concerns with close paraphrasing
  • The sources used appear to be reliable, many are from academic publishers, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Lead
  • suggest "Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment was a cavalry regiment that served in the Confederate States Army during the American Civil War. Originally raised as Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Battalion, it consisted of men recruited in Missouri by <rank> Alonzo W. Slayback during Price's Raid in 1864."
    • Done
  • "The regimentbattalion's first action"
    • Done
  • "then at battalion size"
    • Done
  • "Probably around February 1865, the"
    • Done
  • "although at the time the men of the regiment"
    • Done
  • "On June 2, the Confederate Trans-Mississippi Department surrendered, although the men of the regiment were stationed at different points in Louisiana and Arkansas when they were paroled twelve days later, leading the historian James McGhee to believe that the regiment had disbanded before the surrender."
    • Done
Body
  • say the St. Louis riot was pro-secession
    • Done
  • "in charge of the unitcommand"
    • Done
  • "Price abandoned Missouri for Arkansas in the face of Union pressure"
    • Done
  • "giving the Union general control of Missouri", it sounds like you are talking about a Union general
    • Removed
  • "<rank> Alonzo W. Slayback"
    • Done
  • "The unit grew in strength over the course of Price's Raid, reaching battalion strength in October 1864. It was expanded to full regimental strength around February 1865." as it currently makes it seem that the Raid went on until Feb 65.
    • Done
  • "reported to have issued fromleft Jefferson City"
    • Changed the wording
  • "Collin's Missouri Battery"→"Collins' Missouri Battery"
    • Done
  • "under Thompson's command"
    • Done
  • "Collin's artillery"→"Collins' artillery"
    • Done
  • "with Slayback in the lead" literally Slackback, or his battalion?
    • Literally Slayback. I've thrown in a himself to make it clearer
  • "as was positioned to the left of the rest of Thompson's brigade while on detached duty" is confusing. Wasn't it part of Thompson's brigade? If so, perhaps "as was positioned on the left of Thompson's brigade"
    • Done
  • when were they furloughed?
  • "At an unknown date (probably in February 1865)"→"Probably around February 1865"
    • Done
  • "was disbanded before the surrender"
    • Done

That's all I could find. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Peacemaker67: - All addressed except for one. McGhee doesn't give an exact date for the furlough. I'm in the process of looking for a time frame of when Price was in Arkansas so I can give "in early November" or something like that. This was my concern about this article: there's just so much not recorded in sources that I've seen, so this article is limited in what can be said about the subject. Hog Farm Bacon 23:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, supporting. Sorry about the delay. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

This article is in good shape, and provides interesting insights into this theatre of the US Civil War. I have the following comments:

  • "In July, anti-secession state legislators held a vote rejecting secession." - did only the legislators vote, or was this a more general referendum?
    • Only the legislators. The secession conventions in 1860 and 1861 were all just the state legislature
  • Can the number of men in the unit at various times be noted in the 'Organization' section? (importantly, was this unit ever genuinely at its full strength?)
    • @Nick-D: Only numerical strength I've seen anywhere is 300 in December 1864. I can move that from the service history to the organization. Sources kinda imply a very fluid strength, and Slayback didn't write official reports. This one's always been kinda borderline for ACR, just cause so much about the unit is unknown. Hog Farm Bacon 13:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd suggest leaving that as it is then. I think that the coverage is fine for A-class, especially given the nature of this unit and the theatre of war (e.g. this seems to have been an a unit which was thrown together and operated in somewhat irregular ways in a third-tier theatre as the CSA collapsed, so it's not surprising that few records were created and/or survived). Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Service history' section would benefit from an introduction or similar noting the state of the war in the theatre where the regiment was deployed at this time (as I understand it, this was characterised by fairly small scale operations with neither side placing any priority on the area). At present it's unclear where exactly the unit was fighting, and what it was part of. Nick-D (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nick-D: - I've added a meaty paragraph at the beginning of the Service history section, explaining that the Trans-Mississippi Theater was an isolated backwater district, and giving the goals of Price's Raid, and why it started. Does this help any? Hog Farm Bacon 23:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's excellent, and a very interesting read. As my comments are now addressed, I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

I have done a little copy editing which you may wish to check.

  • "The origins of the Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment began when". Optional: It seems a little clumsy to have both "origins" and "began" in the same introduction to a sentence. Consider rephrasing more felicitously.
    • How about "Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment originated when "? Reads much better, at least to me
  • Not knowing off hand what the Confederate Army considered full strength for a cavalry company, battalion or regiment, I am left with no idea of the size of this formation at any stage of its existence, except when it returned from furlough. Any chance of some actual numbers? Even if they are informed guesses and/or based on nominal "full strength".
    • I honestly can't say. The records don't exist, and they probably never did, since Slayback didn't file reports. In an original research sense, I get the strong impression from my research into this that the strength of this unit was in constant flux. I've always been a little concerned the necessary details don't exist to get this one to A-Class, and I think getting this one to FA is impossible, since so many details are just unknown.
That's fair enough, but where you have "At full strength, the regiment contained ten companies" perhaps you could add something like 'which had a complement of XX men each'? I assume that the Confederate army had a standard complement for a cavalry company and that it is known?
@Gog the Mild: - Theoretically it did, but that almost never happened in this time and place. The Confederate Trans-Mississippi after Vicksburg fell in 1863 just kinda did whatever the hell it wanted to. Smith appointed generals without consulting anyone, discipline was almost nonexistent (see Poison Spring Massacre), and units were formed and unformed as officers desired, and Jo Shelby decided "screw this, let's go to Mexico". The collapse of Germany in 1945 is kinda a good analogy: it was falling apart so much that to compare it military regulations is misleading. I just don't have a good answer for this. Theoretically, if all companies were at full strength, it would have been in the area of 1,000 men; but that is incredibly unlikely for this time and place. Hog Farm Bacon 15:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I like the fall of Germany analogy. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who promoted an end to the war". Maybe → 'who promoted ending the war'?
    • Done
  • "A Union garrison defended small fortifications" I'm not sure about "small". Maybe 'improvised'?
    • After going back into the source, I think improvised is a better word, so changed
  • "However, the Confederate forces were forced to fall back". Suggest deleting "However".
    • Done
  • "to a stone fence". I don't think that a fence can be made of stone. 'wall'?
    • Oddly enough, the sources specifically refer to the men taking shelter behind "a string of stone fences"
How very odd. Ah well.
  • "Any specific casualties suffered by the unit". Delete "Any".
    • Done

That's all I have. A fine piece of prose. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gog the Mild: - I've replied to all of these as I can. Unfortunately, I have no good replies to one or two, as the basic records for this unit either no longer or never did exist. Hog Farm Bacon 15:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. Just a query on the unit's complement. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2020 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article covers the Australian Army's use of M113 armored personnel carriers since 1964. For most of this period they were the most numerous, and possibly the most important, type of armoured vehicle in the Army's fleet. The article covers the large numbers of variants operated by Australia, including a bungled recent major upgrade project which delivered 400 essentially obsolete vehicles, and their operational service in South-East Asia, Somalia and Rwanda.

When I started work on this article last year, I thought it would be a fairly simply project. Instead, it's turned out to have been one of the most difficult articles I've worked on due to the lack of any comprehensive sources and sheer complexity of the topic. I think that the article as it stands is sufficiently comprehensive for A-class, but has room to be improved. I'm looking forward to other editors' comments, and thank you in advance for them. Nick-D (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • I'm satisfied with all the licensing except File:East timor independence un2.jpg. It claims to be the work of a notable scholar (Geoffrey C. Gunn) but without any OTRS evidence that he actually created and released the image.
    • The image was originally uploaded by someone called GCG 200 (talk · contribs) (note the initials) and has metadata which indicates it's self-created, so I think this is fine. Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image layout is consistent with MOS. (t · c) buidhe 08:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Support from Hawkeye7

Impressive effort. Quite a few bits where I was saying: "I did not know that." I congratulate you. Some minor comments:

  • I went looking to see if there were any coloured images of M113s in Vietnam instead of the one at the top. Regrettably, most seem to have been taken in 1970, and will not be PD for another few months. You could consider File:Armoured personnel carrier (APC) Driver and Commander from A Squadron, 3rd Cavalry Regiment.jpg.
    • Yeah, it's a bit frustrating. A lot of the best photos on the AWM's database also seem to be images donated to them by soldiers, so won't be PD next year as well. I quite like the lead image, as it doesn't seem particularly posed, but that's a much better image of an M113 with a gun shield than was in the 'Employment' section, so have swapped it in. Thanks for uploading it. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I consider the use of M113s in ambushes (using large numbers of claymores) an important tactical innovation. But at least you mentioned it.
  • Why is "road wheel" (red) linked?
    • delinked

Some typos (including a couple I'm not sure of):

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AustralianRupert: G'day, Nick. Nice work as always. I reviewed this for GA and see that it has been expanded some more since then. I have a few minor suggestions, but otherwise believe it meets the A-class criteria: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, The Australian Army has operated large numbers of M113 armoured personnel carriers since 1964. Should this be 1962, given that was when the first variants were acquired for trials?
    • I think that 1964 is the more meaningful date, given that the trials were a separate process. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the lead, should Rwanda be linked to UNAMIR?
    • Added to the relevant part of the article's body. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orders were placed during the 1963–64 financial year: full year range now per MOS:YEARRANGE
  • This variant was used to recover other vehicles from the field[28] --> missing full stop
  • in the numbers table, I suggest tweaking the "Acquired" heading to read "Date acquired" or "Years acquired". The final row in this column could also summarise the year range, "1962-1979"
  • "newly-acquired" remove the hyphen, I think: [44]
  • Bandiana is overlinked
  • At the time the 1st Armoured Personnel Carrier was established --> "At the time the 1st Armoured Personnel Carrier Squadron was established"
  • if possible, I suggest adding another image to the Acquisition section to try to break up the text a little
    • Good point - I've added a photo of what looks like a brand new M113 in 1965. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • a longer 1,200 kilometres (750 mi) route back to Innisfail --> "a further 1,200 kilometres (750 mi) back to Innisfail"
  • in the Bibliography, suggest adding hyphens to the ISBN for Bou, for consistency
  • same as above for Prenatt
  • ISBN or OCLC for Handel 1998?
  • for the Blaxland 2012 source, perhaps mention the Australian War Memorial as the publisher?
  • Source review: all appear to be reliable for what they are citing based on publishers and authors. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks a lot for the review. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

I'll try to take this on. It may take me a day or too, I'm a bit busy in RL right now. Hog Farm Bacon 03:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • APC needs a link/gloss at the first mention
  • Also ditto for AFV
  • What were the design differences for the ARVL variant of the M113A1? Design differences are given for the other variants.
    • The sources were irritatingly non-specific - the best I could find led to the explanation that 'this variant was used to recover other vehicles from the field'. Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Bandiana at the first mention, not the second
  • "which could fire high explosive, canister and smoke rounds - Link canister to Canister (projectile) if that's the correct meaning. (I'm much more familiar with 19th-century warfare than 20th)

Just finished Fire support vehicles, so there will be more comments coming over the next few days. Hog Farm Bacon 19:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gloss LRV at the first use of the acronym, unless I'm missing where it's explained earlier in the prose
  • "each comprised four wheeled and tracked options" - Shouldn't it be four-wheeled, since it's used as an adjective, not four being the number of "wheeled and tracked options"
    • Oddly, each proposal had to include four different types of vehicles (Project Waler is often given as an example of a fiasco by works on Australian military procurement). Tweaked to clarify this. Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " consideration was given to replacing the M113s with infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) such as the American M2 Bradley. These AFVs were judged to be too expensive and difficult to deploy. - I feel like the instance of AFV should be IFV to make it clear the IFVs are being referred to
  • "Cabinet approved the M113 Major Upgrade Project in June 2002, and a contract was signed with Tenix the next month" - Not sure if this is the best way to start this sentence. If the Army had approved the project, it wouldn't quite be right to start a sentence with "Army approved the M113...", so I'm not convinced starting it with Cabinet is the best option.

I'm now through all of the Vietnam-related stuff in the service history, hopefully I can get the three other sections taken care of later today. Hog Farm Bacon 20:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • " IFVs to replace the M113s from 2025. - from seems really odd here

That's it, I think. Nice work here, willing to discuss any of these points. Hog Farm Bacon 01:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2020 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Zaharije Ostojić[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Zaharije Ostojić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

After a long hiatus, another Chetnik leader. This fellow is notable for being Chetnik leader Draža Mihailović's chief of staff for a significant part of WWII, during which he oversaw the Chetnik involvement in the large Axis anti-Partisan offensive Case White alongside Italian troops, and for carrying out massacres of thousands of Muslims. I created this page eight years ago, it passed GAN in 2013 and have recently smartened it up. Not a huge amount available on Ostojić's early life, but his actions in WWII and death at the hands of the Ustaše are detailed and well documented. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Only image complies with fair use requirements. (t · c) buidhe 10:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review
  • Chronicles Press—appears to be part of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture,[45] edited by Fleming, and/or the Rockford Institute, directed by same. He seems to be mostly known as a rightwing political hack, so I'm not sure if SPS is met.
  • Neither of those indicate he is considered an expert on Balkan history. The book doesn't appear to have footnotes to check the source of information, so overall I wouldn't consider it a reliable source. (t · c) buidhe 01:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other English sources look fine.
  • I will AGF on Centar za informacije i publicitet and Hrvatski institut za povijest being RS.
  • The first was a government printing shop, but I have author-linked Radoje Pajović, he was an eminent Montenegrin historian. The Croatian Institute of History is the leading Croatian history institution, I've linked Zdravko Dizdar, one of the authors. Sobolevski is also a well-published academic in Serbo-Croatian and Italian. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No source checks done. (t · c) buidhe 10:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

  • As many as 2,000 local Muslims were subsequently killed in the town MOS:EGG here.
  • The reliables sources covering the period consistently refer to "Bosnian Muslims" rather than the more modern "Bosniaks", which is why I have piped it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • village of Gluhi Do in the Crmnica district --> "village of Gluhi Do in the Crmnica District"?
  • he joined the Royal Yugoslav Air Force (Serbo-Croatian Latin: Jugoslovensko kraljevsko ratno vazduhoplovstvo, JKRV) No Cyrillic?
  • Not sure it is necessary, as the main reason for including the sh is the initialisation, and in Cyrillic it is a different initialisation, ЈКРВ. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the outbreak of World War II, the government of Regent I don't think everyone knows when exactly the war has started or at least the year and month.
  • the pending attack on the Soviet Union, Adolf Hitler I don't really know but isn't Hitler not that popular in every day life?
  • the Yugoslav government conditionally signed --> "the Yugoslav Government conditionally signed" Many Australian sources use "Goverment" at this case.
  • Ostojić escorted Prince Paul to exile in Greece and Shouldn't it be the Kingdom of Greece's link?
  • Cairo is linked in the body but not in the lead.
  • They flew from Cairo to Malta on 13 September 1941 British Malta or the island?
  • linked Crown Colony of Malta
  • staff as he moved around the Rudnik mountain area during the remaining winter months of 1941–1942 Maybe add "local" here people around the quarter don't know when it starts and it ends. Oh and isn't it "Rudnik Mountain"?
  • In August, he launched a counterattack against Ustaše --> "In August, he launched a counter-attack against Ustaše"?
  • to wage a campaign of terror against the Muslim population living Let's say the majority of the Muslims are Bosniaks but you also have an ethnic group who call themselves Muslims which can be confused.
  • The two terms "Bosnian Muslims" and "Bosniaks" are effectively interchangeable in this context. See my earlier comment about the usage. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Southeast vs south-eastern
  • the Partisans, he then contacted the United States Office of Strategic Services (OSS) US is too common.
  • troops were meant to cross the Sava river into Slavonia --> "troops were meant to cross the Sava River into Slavonia"
  • they reached the Vrbas river, which they began to cross --> "they reached the Vrbas River, which they began to cross"
  • Could you also add at least a year in the image "File:Zaharije_Ostojic1.jpg"?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your review, CPA-5, all done I reckon. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed[edit]

  • If the rank is significant enough to be at the top of the infobox, shouldn't be used before the subject's name to open the lead?
  • The lead seems a bit lengthy given the overall length of the article. Perhaps the first few sentences of the second para could be condensed?
  • SOE is abbreviated in the lead, but actually isn't used in the abbreviated form in the rest of the lead
  • Early life: After his schooling,...}. Suggest "After completing his schooling,..."
  • To Cairo and back: suggest breaking up the large paragraph that forms this section. Maybe at "Following the subsequent ..."
  • To Cairo and back: suggest a bit of context for Draža Mihailović on his first mention
  • Move to Montengro: link for the Sandžak?
  • Operation Weiss: there is no explanation for NDH
  • Operation Weiss: forced a crossing of the Neretva This crossing is mentioned three times in the 4th/5th paragraphs using very similar language. Suggest revising. Eg, the first mention could be something like "as the Partisans approaching Jablanica" (or departing, I'm not sure which way the Neertva is relative to Jablanica)
  • 1943-1944: Partisans, he then contacted the United States Office of Strategic Services... better clarify who "he" is here (presumably Ostojić but in the context it could also be Baćović or Mihailović)
  • 1943-1944: The OSS is abbreviated on first mention but actually is not mentioned again.

Hope this feedback helps. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Zawed. I reckon I might have cleared the confusion up a bit. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, I have added my support. Zawed (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vanamonde[edit]

As always, feel free to revert any copy-edits I might make.

  • "Ostojić was involved in the coup through his close relationship" reads odd to me; I would phrase it "Ostojić had a close relationship [..] and was involved in the coup as a result" or some such. Involvement through a relationship is what sounds strange.
Fixed I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't obvious to me whether the coup plotters were supporting or opposing the Nazis; I can infer it from later content, but making it explicit would be helpful
It is terribly complicated, because the post-coup government was very conflicted about their approach to the Axis, but I've added "putatively anti-Axis". Does that work? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a fellow VVKJ officer" could refer to both men in that sentence.
Fixed with punctuation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the wake of Operation Uzice" I think a brief summary of what that was (a sentence or less) would aid understanding that paragraph
Added a bit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know why the 2000 muslims were killed?
  • Likewise with the campaign of terror
Re: these two, it is a long story, but basically ethnic cleansing was Chetnik policy to create a Greater Serbia. I'll need to find an appropriate source for this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have added some material, see what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much clearer, thanks. I wonder if "Greater Serbia" should be in quotes the first time, because it's presumably their interpretation of the concept, not a specific region, that you're referring to? Not a major deal either way.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The plan that Ostojić drew up" what is this a plan for? the last thing we have him doing is asking for a reconsideration of chetnik collaboration.
clarified that after being rebuffed, he went on implementing Mihailović's orders. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, it might be helpful to drop in a couple more anchors to the general strategic situation, which is bloody complex; I'm struggling a little to follow the shifts in Ostojic's objectives.
A very good point, it hard to know what to include, as bio articles can become mini-Chetniks articles, but I have expanded somewhat on strategies etc. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. Yes, it's clearer to me now.
  • "he senior British liaison officer with the Chetniks at the time" color me stupid; the Chetniks are allied with the Italians; what are they doing with a British liaison?
"Complex" doesn't begin to cover it. British SOE teams had been with Mihailović since late 1941, but they had progressively become aware that his subordinates were collaborating with the Italians, the Partisans were doing the lion's share of actual resistance to the occupiers, and in early 1943 the British were really starting to question why they were supporting the Chetniks at all. I've added a bit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. I knew the shifting alliances here were complex, but hadn't realize the extent of it. This is clearer,
  • "After the fall of Belgrade on 20 October 1944," fall from whom to whom? also, is a link available?
a combined Red Army and Partisan force. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be some slight redundancy in the last paragraph re: executions.
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it; very readable prose, as always; I think some additions to help an uninformed reader (such as myself) better understand the shifting alliances would be very helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Vanamonde93! See if I have addressed all your comments sufficiently. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: thanks; two minor additional comments from me, but happy to support in the meantime. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Parsecboy[edit]

  • ...introduced him to the Yugoslav Partisan leader Josip Broz Tito then Mihailović. - maybe I'm tired, but my brain is not parsing what you mean by "then Mihailovic". Do you mean he introduced him to Tito and then Mihailovic?
Yes, but it was poorly expressed. Better now? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...brought the Chetnik Supreme staff... - this reads oddly to me as well; I'd think if you're going to capitalize supreme, you should use the full name, since supreme by itself is not a noun
Missing word. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm of two minds about the word "quisling" - I don't want to dull down the prose too much, but I wonder if something more direct would be better for readers.
changed to collaborated. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes it's Operation Weiss, others Case White - I'd pick one and standardize on it
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The box states his date of death as April 1945, but this is not mentioned in the prose
Added the dates of the Battle of Lijevče Field, I also checked the camp website again, and it no longer lists him, so I've removed it as a source, changed infobox to "circa April – May 1945" to reflect that he could have been killed anytime between the end of the battle and the end of the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, it includes Operation Mihailovic in the battles section, but this is mentioned only in passing in the text, with no details on Ostojic's role in it. And the Battle of Višegrad is not mentioned in the article at all.
Rm both. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any useful maps that can be added? I know a bit more about Balkan geography than the average bear (which is admittedly not a high bar) but there are a lot of places I had to check
Working... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have no added three location maps showing important locations mentioned in the text. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parsecboy (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done, I reckon Parsecboy! What do you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me now - the only minor quibble is that the town names on the maps are pretty tiny. If those could be a little larger that'd be good, but I'm happy to support now. Great work as usual, PM. Parsecboy (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have upscaled them to 75, but weirdly, my screen shows them the same regardless. Hopefully they are better on your screen? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Eddie891[edit]

  • " at the time of the invasion in April." I think "during the invasion" would flow better
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added British and linked Captain (British Army and Royal Marines). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hey also carried out almost throughout the war" What does 'almost throughout the war' mean here?
"for almost all of the war", changed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "what course of action to take" what was the course of action for?
Clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for the pending attack on the" maybe "pending invasion of the", perhaps a piped link to Operation Barbarossa would be apt?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would personally provide a wiktionary link to wikt:putatively, I think that's a little-known word, but no big deal either way
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prince Peter II of Yugoslavia of age" I think a clarification {{note}} about how Peter was young and Paul had been a regent would be most welcome. Readers may not understand what's happening here
I think it has already established that Paul was regent and Peter was 17. Not sure why this is needed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "those that collaborated with them." Somewhat unclear who 'them' refers to here
Gave an example. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After Mihailović went on the run in early December 1941 in the wake of the successful German counter-insurgency operations Uzice and Mihailovic, and the split with the Partisans, Ostojić maintained a small headquarters consisting mainly of the intelligence staff, which remained close to Mihailović and his small personal staff as he moved around the Rudnik Mountain area during the rest of the winter, ending in February 1942" That's a mouthful. Let's break it up. I'd propose "After the successful German counter-insurgency operations Uzice and Mihailovic, and the split with the Partisans, Mihailović went on the run in early December 1941. Ostojić maintained a small headquarters consisting mainly of the intelligence staff, which remained close to Mihailović and his small personal staff as he moved around the Rudnik Mountain area during the rest of the winter, ending in February 1942." Or something similar
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""systematic effort to exterminate or expel the Muslim and Croat population"" In Serbia or the world? The rest of the article seems to suggest that the efforts were more focused on 'Greater Serbia'
Clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Status Quo" really one of the latin phrases that needs to be italicized? I'd consider that it has entered into English enough to not be...
Fair enough, de-italicised. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

more to come. Standard thing about my comments, they are mostly minor, no big deal if you disagree. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done thus far, Eddie891. Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " for the "march on Bosnia" were drawn into closer" Why is this in quotes?
It is a strategic concept rather than just a plain description. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually it for the rest of the article. Is there anything worth saying about his legacy or anything really after death? Eddie891 Talk Work 00:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. He hasn't figured in any of the post-communist rehabilitation cases, historical revisionism or anything similar, and the sources only talk about his actions during WWII. Thanks for taking a look at this, Eddie891! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aight, Happy to Support. One of my comments above hasn't been adressed, but it's nothing to hold up support. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed that one, have responded above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:46, 25 August 2020 (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) 10:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Piercebridge[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk)

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

Toolbox

Okay, it has been a little while since I've been here. The Battle of Piercebridge was a relatively minor skirmish near the start of the First English Civil War. The Parliamentarians futilely tried to prevent the Earl of Newcastle bringing his army of 6,000 men into Yorkshire. Faced with a defence of 580 men, the van of Newcastle's army made an assault supported by 10 artillery pieces. Within a few hours, the Parliamentarians had retreated back towards Yorkshire, and Newcastle was able to continue his march, and give the Royalists a numerical advantage in the county that lasted for eighteen months. As ever, all input appreciated. Harrias talk 15:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

All images free (t · c) buidhe 13:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hog Farm[edit]

  • Link dragoon in the lead, it's not a term overly familiar today
  • Shouldn't the caption in the infobox have "16th-century" not "16th century", or is that an engvar thing?
  • My experience with writing battle articles is limited to the American Civil War and the War of 1812, but I've always included the strength of the two forces in the infobox. Is there a reason it's left out here?
  • Yes, because we only know the numbers for the Parliamentarians. Although Newcastle had around 6,000 men, he only committed the vanguard to this assault. Described as a regiment each of dragoons and foot we could be looking at anything from around 800 to 2,000. With such uncertainty, I don't think it would be beneficial for the reader to have this included. I'm considering adding an Opposing forces section which might help to expand on this a little. Harrias talk 15:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider linking the North Sea. Sadly, as an American, I don't think the location of this body of water was ever mentioned by the local public schools, and I'd say lack of knowledge of European geography is common across the pond.
  • Is there a way to make it more obvious that Captain John Hotham and Sir John Hotham are not the same person? I had to delve into the links to determine this.
  • I have added a bit into the Background that hopefully helps with this: "Although it was signed by twelve prominent leaders, neither the Hothams (Sir John Hotham and his son, Captain John Hotham) nor Cumberland.." Harrias talk 15:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use both "The Battlefields Trust" and "the Battlefields Trust"; keep the capitalization consistent
  • The description of the battle itself is very brief. Is there any further detail that can be added?
  • I personally think a brief statement about any preservation of the site, or relevant remains, is relevant to the article. The Battlefields Trust page seems to indicate that traces of earthworks may still be present.

That's all I've got. Hog Farm Bacon 04:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to some, two left which I will address in the article. Harrias talk 15:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I have responded to each of your points above. I have also added an Opposing forces section; can you take a look over this, and let me know how it is, and whether you think it adds to the article? Harrias talk 21:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: - Consider linking companies to Company (military unit), but other than that it looks great. At least to me, the new section helps my understanding of the organization of the two forces, which is much clearer with that material in there. Hog Farm Bacon 21:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Good spot, linked. Anything else? Harrias talk 22:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel ready to support this one. Hog Farm Bacon 22:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

  • Earwig brings up no COPYVIO of online material, assuming good faith on close paraphrasing of offline sources.
  • Looks like Newman is probably reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, a doctoral thesis at a major, well-respected university. It's used sparingly, which is probably best.

Spot checks:

  • "The royalist advance guard of foot and dragoons assaulted the bridge and Colonel Thomas Howard, leading his dragoons, was killed in the action" - Is what the Battlefields Trust presents. To me, this doesn't quite indicate the same thing as the dragoons first and then the infantry, which is what's stated in the article. If I'm misinterpreting something, please point it out.
  • @Hog Farm: I based that on the previous paragraphs: "The royalists included an advance guard of Sir William Lambton’s Regiment of Foot and Thomas Howard’s Regiment of Dragoons, plus some ordnance. This latter force, marching down Dere Street, probably met parliamentarian resistance from outlying forces in the yards, gardens and buildings of Piercebridge, which was driven back over the bridge." I read this to mean that the dragoons first, then the infantry. Harrias talk 06:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checked all of the references to Newman, Hopper 2011, the Battlefields Trust, and three of the Daniels & Philo references. Looks to be in good shape on the sourcing, just need the query above addressed. Hog Farm Bacon 01:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Great to see you at ACR again, Harrias. A few comment from me:

  • suggest "The Battle of Piercebridge was fought on 1 December 1642 in County Durham, England, during the First English Civil War."
    • Yeah, that's probably a bit smoother. Changed. Harrias talk 13:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Earl of Newcastle was advancing with an army of 6,000"
  • drop the comma from "was in its fourth month, since Charles I"
  • "the Kking's departure"
    • As we are talking about a specific King, rather than a general king, it should be capitalised. Harrias talk 13:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think so, per MOS:JOBTITLES: "The formality (officialness), specificity, or unusualness of a title is not a reason to capitalize it." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per the second bullet point from that section for when it should be capitalised: "When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II)". Harrias talk 08:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link North Sea
  • "to enable Charles' wife Henrietta Maria (formally known as Queen Mary)"
  • "when Henrietta Maria returned" where had she gone?
    • "to enable Charles's wife Henrietta Maria (formally known as Queen Mary) to land with a supply of weapons from the continent, and with protecting her once she arrived" Harrias talk 13:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should clarify, it isn't clear whether she had left yet. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Peacemaker67: Left to the continent, or left to return? If the former, I've hopefully made that clearer now ("to enable Charles's wife Henrietta Maria (formally known as Queen Mary) to land with a supply of weapons from the continent where she had left for in February, and with protecting her once she arrived." If the latter, she hadn't. Harrias talk 08:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link advance guard, suggest "as part of advance guards"
  • "The infantry was made up of a detachment of 400 men, possibly split into four companies" as we already know there were 400
    • Cut and rephrased slightly differently to flow better. Harrias talk 13:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and how much successful their recruitment had been"
  • introduce Howard's rank when first mentioned, and Colonel Sir Thomas Howard→Howard
    • I've removed it completely. A couple of the sources are ambiguous on this, and it was more a position than a rank at the time anyway. Harrias talk 13:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Carlbury#Carlbury Hill and Carlbury Hall for Carlbury Hill
  • Sir William Lambton's infantry
  • link Bradford
  • just watch your p. and pp., fn 2 needs fixing
  • what makes Daniels & Philo reliable?
    • Although it was published by "The Authors & Heritage Lottery Fund", it was put together by Tees Archaeology (the local archaeological society) and the Battlefields Trust. Harrias talk 13:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Peacemaker67; I have responded to each point above. Harrias talk 13:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, supporting. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • I think that some of your sources in "Opposing forces" forces are talking cobblers, but that's not your fault. (A "push of the pike" from defensive units"; yeah, right!)
  • Roberts also describes them as mainly defensive in nature by this stage, as musketeers became the more potent attacking force, hence the change from 1:1 to 3:2 to 2:1 and so on... Harrias talk 14:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I have three sources for the 3ECW who describe pikes as the offensive component of an infantry regiment. And surely if pikes were there to keep the cavalry off, they would be evenly distributed, not grouped as a "stand". Probably best to leave further discussion for over a pint sometime. So long as you are backed by a consensus of sources then, obviously, you are fine.
  • "Infantry formations and tactics were similar in both armies, generally based on the previous military experience of the commanding officers" So far as I can work out, this doesn't actually tell us anything about the formations and tactics. Or, actually, anything about anything.
  • I think I mostly pilfered and adapted this from the Dunbar article while I was working out how to format the section. But you're right, and given this wasn't a set piece battle, it is pretty irrelevant anyway. Removed. Harrias talk 10:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! Nice: blame me for your wording.
  • "were armoured with just a helmet and plate armour on their torso" Why "just"? Link "plate armour on their torso" to cuirass.
  • Removed "just", and linked (it's pretty confusing that a harquebusier wore cuirass armour mind...) Harrias talk 10:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and carried a sword, two pistols and a carbine" I realise that that ropey source supports you, but are you sure that you want to go with most non-dragoon cavalry carrying a carbine as well as a sword and two pistols? (If they "remained mounted to fight", when were they supposed to use them?)
  • @Gog the Mild: Just a note on this one, but flicking through my Edgehill books, both Peter Young, and Roberts & Tincey list two pistols and a carbine for the cavalry. Harrias talk 10:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added in Tincey to provide support for this. They fired while mounted, but otherwise fought in the same manner as the musketeers, rotating the firing rank by rank as they advanced. (Except for Rupert's "charge first, fire later" theory, of course.) Harrias talk 14:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds bizarre, but what do I know?
  • The source doesn't say ""; it says "often up to 18 feet (5-6m) long". (No, I don't know how something can be "often up to" either.) That's cus they were meant to be 18 foot when issued, but long enough and sound enough timber wasn't always available; and anyway, the pikemen hated the unwieldly length and cut them down to about 15 foot as soon as they could get away with it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have Troops and tactics of the Third English Civil War at an advanced stage in a sandbox.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: This has given me the push to finally buy Soldiers of the English Civil War (1): Infantry and (2): Cavalry which have been in my Civil War wish list for ages. They should arrive on Saturday, so I'll mop this up with better sources then, rather than root around for each battle. (My Edgehill books have a lot of detail on this, but I'm always wary of using commentary on one battle in the article for another.) Harrias talk 17:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't do it - you will then know more than me, which would be an unnatural state of affairs. They should certainly render your formations and tactics sections pretty unrebuttable. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Replies above. Harrias talk 14:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

I'm woefully ignorant about the English Civil War, but think that this article meets the A-class criteria. I've got two suggestions for a possible FAC:

  • "Unlike the disputed state of Yorkshire" - not sure about this wording
  • A photo of the remaining earthworks noted in the last para would be very useful, if it would be feasible to obtain Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2020 (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 Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of avisos of Germany[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

List of avisos of Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This list covers the avisos built by the Prussian, Imperial German, and Nazi German navies between the 1840s and 1930s, and is the culmination of a project last year to document all of them. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list in preparation for a run at FLC. Parsecboy (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This is looking good. A few comments from me:

  • French Fforces in the Baltic and link Baltic Sea
    • Done
  • the Nix-class had two marine steam engines
    • Good catch
  • link Swinemünde
    • Done
  • say who Otto von Diederichs was, "future Admiral"? Same for Alfred von Tirpitz
    • Done
  • "in the 1890s in the 1890s"? and?
    • Whoops!
  • The Blitz-class speed is as designed, not top speed generated (which was less in both cases)
    • Good catch
  • in the Wacht-class table, "3 × 10. cm guns" and you could add the calibre (ie L/35)
    • Done
  • The Meteor-class top speed should probably be 19.5 kn
    • Done
  • Should Hela's speed be 20.5 kn achieved in her sea trials?
    • I generally prefer not to use trials speeds since there are a lot of variables at play that don't reflect normal conditions (and they were frequently manipulated for a variety of reasons), apart from the cases where like with the Blitzes, the ships did not reach their intended speed
  • author-link Erich Gröner and Theodore Ropp

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM Parsecboy (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, looking good for FLC IMHO. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review—pass

Support by Nick-D[edit]

The Imperial German Navy seems to have specialised in slightly odd ships, and these are a good example! I have the following comments:

Or is it just that the German navies are better documented than others? ;-)
The German Navy seems to have always had more than it's fair share of slightly odd ships. The modern German Navy's Baden-Württemberg-class frigates don't make much sense, for instance, as they're destroyer sized ships with a very modest armament despite being intended for inshore work. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was also the last major German warship to be built abroad" - the Lütjens-class destroyers were built in the US, so I don't think this is correct as written.
    • Clarified that it was the last of the Imperial fleet
      • This doesn't seem to have been done yet?
        • Ah, I fixed it in the body but not the lead - that's done now too. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Mediterranean Sea with a pair of gunboats on the eve of the Second Schleswig War" - was the ship back in naval service at this time if she was operating with gunboats?
    • Yes - apparently forgot to include that step in the ship's history
  • "Greif was not a successful warship" - can you say why? Nick-D (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gardiner doesn't explain why, and Hildebrand et. al. don't discuss any design shortcomings - I'd assume the lack of torpedoes and her poor handling. Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support But please tweak per my first comment. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by CPA-5[edit]

I don't think this article's name is the right name. I believe it should be like the "List of battleships of Russia and the Soviet Union" because this also includes Prussia which wasn't Germany; I believe it needs to be "List of avisos of Germany and Prussia". I think that's the main issue here. I'll do a review when this issue is solved. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally accepted that Germany was the successor state to the Prussian-led North German Confederation, so I disagree with the idea this is needed. In this case, concision outweighs precision IMHO. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • True that. But isn't the Soviet Union also the successor (and technically also the predecessor) of Russia and is still part of the list's name? I'd say Soviet Union was also accepted to be the successor of Russia. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a lot, but I just don't understand why do we have a list where both Russian and Soviet ships are in and is called "List of battleships of Russia and the Soviet Union" while this has both German and Prussian ships but is called "List of avisos of Germany" instead of "List of avisos of Germany and Prussia"? To me Russia is the predecessor of Soviet Union so it makes a lot of sense to include it in the title while Prussia is also a predecessor but this time of Germany but Prussia isn't part of the title. I just want an answer why isn't it called "List of avisos of Germany and Prussia"? Cheers.
  • @Parsecboy: Hello, I think this might be interesting for you. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Peacemaker, I prefer a shorter title when the meaning is clear - my view is that any of the navies of the German lands should be included in these lists (which is why if I ever get around to a List of gunboats of Germany, it'd include vessels like Von der Tann (gunboat) of the Schleswig-Holstein navy (and bear in mind that the title of such a list would become impossibly cumbersome if we included Hannover, Prussia, Schleswig-Holstein, etc.). Consider: List of destroyers of Germany is a much better title than List of destroyers of Germany and West Germany (assuming one doesn't feel the need to differentiate between the other German states.
  • Hmm if we indeed are talking about geographic Germany then that's fine. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know – I've never seen people calling Soviet Union Russia. I only have seen people calling it on the internet but never in the media. Maybe that's an American thing or colloquial I don't know. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day CPA-5, anything outstanding needed from your perspective? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

All of the sources are high quality reliable specialist naval sources or other reliable sources. I haven't done any spot checks based on the nominator's long history at ACR. All good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pendright[edit]

Back soon - Pendright (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preussischer Adler:

  • Preussischer Adler was an iron-hulled paddle steamer originally built for the Prussian postal service to operate on the packet route between Prussia and Russia in the mid-1840s.
Consider a comma after steamer.
  • The ship was requisitioned early in her career during the First Schleswig War to defend the Prussian coast from the more powerful Danish Navy that imposed a blockade on Prussia's and the other German states' ports.
  • "during the First Schleswig War" seems to have the characteristics of supplemental information and ordinarily is set off by commas.

Nix-class:

  • The two Nix-class avisos were ordered in the immediate aftermath of the First Schleswig War as part of a program intended to strengthen the Prussian fleeti
Add a comma after war
  • The Prussians were not satisfied with the ships, in part a result of Nix's fires and general unfamiliarity with operating steamships.
Probably need an "as" between part & a.
  • They sold the vessels to Britain in exchange for the sail frigate Thetis in 1855; Nix and Salamander became HMS Weser and Recruit, respectively.
Was it a sale and an exchange, or just a sale, or just an exchange?

Grille:

  • Grille was ordered in 1855 as part of Adalbert's fleet expansion program; she was the first steam ship to use screw propellers rather than the paddle wheels of earlier vessels.
The Oxfprd American Dictiomary spells steamship as one word.
  • She sortied on 16 April with Adalbert aboard to attack the Danish blockade squadron in the Baltic that resulted in an inconclusive encounter with the Danish ship of the line Skjold and the steam frigate Sjælland.
  • Is it 16 April 1855?
  • This is a 36 word sentence without a puncuated pause?

Loreley:

  • She was purchased by what was now the North German Federal Navy in August 1870,
She was purchased by what was "then" the North German Federal Navy in August 1870,

Pommerania:

  • The navy brought the ship into commission during the Franco-Prussian War but crew shortages delayed conversion until after the war.
Add a comma before but.
  • She went to the Mediterranean with the ironclad training squadron in 1876 in response to the murder of a German diplomat in Salonika.
  • Consdier adding a "semicolon or a comma" after 1876?

Zieten:

  • Future admiral Otto von Diederichs served aboard the ship during her first year in service, [at] which [time it] involved tests of the bow torpedo tubes that demonstrated [that] the bow tube, located in the hull below the waterline, was not satisfactory; Diederichs arranged for the tube to be moved to a swivel mount on the deck.
  • The definite article should start the sentence.
  • Consider the bracketed [changes] or simiar ones.
  • The last clause seems like it could stand on its own as another sentence, given that this sentence is a 54 word one.

Blitz class:

  • They operated as dedicated tenders to the battle squadrons of the High Seas Fleet ...
Consider replacing "to" with "for
  • Blitz took part in Operation Albion in the Baltic Sea in late 1917 and Pfeil was later used as a training ship for U-boat crews.
Add a comma after 1917 to separate the indepencent clauses.

Greif:

  • Greif was designed at a time where torpedoes had become effective weapons and spurred the development of the Jeune École, which held that cheap torpedo boats could destroy large, expensive battleships.
  • "where" should probably be "when"
  • Add a comma after weapons to join the independent clauses.
  • ... "which" held that ... Who held the opinion that followed.
  • She was intended to guard the capital ships of the fleet against torpedo boat attacks, and for this role, she carried a battery of 10.5 cm (4.1 in) and 3.7 cm (1.5 in) guns. Unlike other German avisos of the period, she carried no torpedo tubes.
Why the comma after role?
  • Greif was not a successful warship, however, and she spent much of her career laid up, out of service.
however or and - which is it?

Hela:

  • She nevertheless proved to be too weakly armed for fleet service, and the next cruising-type vessel to be built in Germany was the Gazelle class of light cruisers; ...
After this phrase, "She nevertheless proved to be too weakly armed for fleet service" consider adding a full stop. And begin a new sentence, because the subject has seemed to have pretty much changed.

Grille:

  • Grille was then sold to a Lebanese businessman, and, after arriving in Beirut, was attacked by Jewish commandos in 1947 because they incorrectly suspected that it would be used against Jewish forces during the ongoing civil war in Palestine.
Consider the following changes or something similar. >>> Grille was then sold to a Lebanese businessman. After arriving in Beirut in 1947, she was attacked by Jewish commandos who incorrectly suspected that Grille would be used against Jewish forces during the ongoing civil war in Palestine

Finished - Pendright (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2020 (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 Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Manuel Noriega[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Vanamonde93 (talk)

Manuel Noriega (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Manuel Noriega was a military strongman in Panama for a while, and a large player in Central American politics of the time. This is my second nomination of this article; the first nomination received some helpful comments on the sources (from Buidhe) and content (from Peacemaker67), but I found myself without the time to address their comments, and asked the nomination to be withdrawn. I have done my best to address their comments before renominating this; where I have not, it's usually because the sources do not provide the necessary information. Before that, the article underwent a thorough GA review from Midnightblueowl. All comments are welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass[edit]

Most of my concerns from the prior review were addressed but the Gilboa article is 23 pages long and really needs page numbers for verifiability. There is a discussion ongoing on WT:FAC which suggests that for verifiability around 10 pages or less may be acceptable but not for longer papers.

Okay, fair enough. I'll work on this when I get back online in some hours. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now added. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gilboa says that "on and off the CIA payroll as early as 1971", not that "The CIA made its first regular payment to him in 1971." It does not support the previous sentence either as far as I can tell.
    Due apologies; the bit about previous payments, and the regularization, are both supported by Dinges 49-52, which I had cited in the previously nominated version; I guess the citation got lost in the reorganization. I have replaced it. I have also reorganized the section a tiny bit to make it clear that the specific agency making previous payments is unknown.
  • Gilboa says that Secretary of State attended Barletta's inauguration and that it recognized the flaws in the election. But I can't tell if it supports the second part of the sentence: "The U.S. accepted Barletta's election, and signaled a willingness to cooperate with him, despite recognizing the flaws in the election process." Where is cooperation mentioned?
    Cooperation between Barletta's government and the US is discussed extensively in Dinges 198-199, which is the other source cited there; specifically, he discusses state department papers suggested Barletta would be an important ally; the meeting between Barletta and Secretary of State Shultz, in which Shultz asked for Barletta's diplomatic assistance; and describes the outcome of this meeting as a "quid-pro-quo".
  • "Noriega's rule of Panama has frequently been described as a dictatorship," I was unable to verify this because a search for "dictatorship" in Gilboa did not return results. Is this just his own opinion or is he reporting that it is a common opinion? buidhe 04:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gilboa is fairly explicit in describing Noriega as a dictator; there's "Despite the end of the cold war, dictators such as Noriega, Saddam Hussein, and Serbian leaders Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic will continue to exist and to challenge the international order" on the first page, for instance, and several other equivalent statements. You are correct in suggesting more citations here would be helpful, though. I have added three others; any number more are available, and it's quite evident that it reflects scholarly consensus.
      • For "frequently been described as a dictatorship" you really need a secondary source reporting that it's a commonly held opinion. I don't doubt it, but it does have to be verifiable. Otherwise, all that you can do is say is something to the effect of "Gilboa, Galván, Kempe, Koster & Sánchez describe Noriega as a dictator" (each is WP:PRIMARY for the opinion held by the author). See WP:RS/AC.
        • @Buidhe: I appreciate that that's what our policy says, but when you move out of the anglosphere, the number of people writing syntheses declines drastically; I'm unaware of a literature review related to Norieaga. In this case, if a source does not call Noriega a dictator it will call him an authoritarian ruler or a strongman, and being unable to convey that seems problematic (I don't imagine you want me to list three dozen historians using these descriptors). In large part that's because, unlike some other leaders whose legacy is contested, Noriega's isn't. I can think of a couple of alternatives to the current wording; 1) I could cite an encyclopedia, which is generally considered a tertiary source, but doesn't seem to be mentioned as such at WP:RS/AC; 2) I could stick to the present sources, and write something like "Historians studying Noriega's rule in Panama, including [...], have referred to him as a dictator." 3) I could use the sources I've cited (and several dozen others) for the statement "Noriega was a dictator [refs] and a strongman[refs]". I didn't do 3) because qualifying it seemed more circumspect than stating it baldly, but the sources would actually explictly support (3). (2) seems like us being wishy-washy because scholars don't bother analyzing a question when the answer is widely accepted. How would you like to proceed here? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Buidhe: I've addressed your page range concern above; also, I really would appreciate more discussion of the question here. A fourth option, to add to those above, would be to say "Noriega has been described as a dictator[refs], strongman[refs], and authoritarian ruler[refs]. I would have the same concern as with (2) above, but it's an option. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think option 4 is probably best, although I would not object to 3. Note that "Generally described as a military dictatorship" in the lead also should be changed to match the body. Page ranges are OK now, thanks. buidhe 02:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Buidhe: Okay, after further thought I've implemented something in between 3 & 4. Happy to discuss this further if you feel the need. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

I may be too close to this, as I've already reviewed earlier this year in some detail, and some points I raised have not been addressed:

@Peacemaker67: I'm not sure you are too close to this, given that I asked for a procedural close last time, and it's not as though we had a conflict over your comments. I did make an effort to address your comments from that review in the interim. I'm happy to work through any comments I missed, or anything additional that crops up; I do want to note though, that in most cases where I did not act on your comments, it's because the relevant information doesn't exist in the sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest expanding the infobox with relevant parameters such as nickname, criminal_charges and criminal_penalty
    Is it a deal-breaker if I don't? The nickname was fairly clearly a derogatory term, obviously not used in his presence; the charges, and penalties, are extensive; in the US, alone, he was charged with ten crimes, and convicted of eight of them. It seems a bit much for the infobox.
  • is anything available on the foreign or domestic awards he received other than the French LoH?
    Afraid not. I dug a fair bit.
  • when mentioning Arias for the first time, include that he was a candidate of the Panameñista Party
    Added, though the party was called something else at the time, so rephrased a little.
  • when mentioning Chiari, mention that he was from the National Liberal Party
    Added.

Down to Rise to power. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • do we known when Noriega was promoted to captain?
    We do not. I have dug fairly deep. I suspect that to find this information one would need to go through stacks of paperwork belonging to the Panamanian military.
  • "Bush, now US Vvice Ppresident"
    Fixed.
  • what was the reason for deleting the information about BCCI, Bush and the Dukakis campaign statement?
    As Buidhe pointed out in their source review, that needed a better source than the Dukakis campaign. Dukakis was running against Bush, and had an incentive to show him in a bad light. I tried to see if independent sources had given it any weight, but found no evidence for it. For the record, the material predated my involvement with the article, but I should have caught it regardless.
  • "and announced his intent to return to Panama to oppose him" but we have already learned he returned to Panama in 1981? The timeline here isn't clear, did Spadafora return to Panama, leave and come back? If so, when was he killed?
    I can see why this is confusing, but to me it simply reflects the fact that a) travel between the small central american countries was commonplace, and b) the writers are probably using that phrasing because Spadafora may not have been in Panama when he made the 1985 announcement. However, it's the substance of the announcement that matters, so I'm just dropping the "return" piece of that; we simply do not have a detailed account of Spadafora's movements over four years. It's a good guess that he left the country a dozen or more times. In the same vein, there's little I can do about the travel to Costa Rica; we know he was returning when murdered, but have no idea where else he had been and for how long.
  • suggest "His decapitated body was later found wrapped in a United States Postal Service mail bag and showing signs of brutal torture."
    Done.
  • "While Noriega was out of the country"? Where was he?
    Dinges doesn't say. I've rephrased to make it clear it was his absence that mattered, and that it's not a reference to previous travel
  • Spadafora was murded
    Fixed.

Down to 1989 election. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "other intelligence services"? Cuba, but any others?
    I saw this comment earlier, but I don't quite see the issue; it could mean multiple countries, but also multiple agencies, or really "anything besides the CIA".
  • Defense Forces→PDF
    Done.
  • add a main template linking to United States invasion of Panama at the top of the Invasion section
    It's already at the top of the section; does it need to be over the subsection too?
  • the number of US casualties during the invasion is clearly stated as 23 killed and more than 300 wounded in the NYT per [46], and the LA Times said 23 killed and 324 wounded per [47]. I reckon you should just go with the LA Times figures, and perhaps include the number of friendly fire casualties from that article as well.
    Not too happy scrubbing the scholarly source, but the 23 figure is repeated everywhere and the 60 is not, so okay.
  • Panama city→Panama City
    Done.
  • With regards to the local civilian casualties, Physicians for Human Rights said that there was no evidence of several thousand civilian deaths. See the NYT article [48]
    We've already added a bunch of lower death tolls, and I think the higher number comes from enough people that it needs mentioned...
  • link land mine
  • The Guardian says his nickname was due to his heavily pockmarked features as the result of a childhood illness, per [49].
    Added.

That's the redux of my first ACR, I'll reread when you're finished with the above and see if anything else jumps out. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thanks; I've replied. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Peacemaker67, not to be a bother, but I was wondering if there were other concerns you had, and if not, whether you would consider supporting promotion? Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, will look it over again in the next day or so. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Not to be a bother, just another gentle nudge...also wondering if you have any thoughts on the lack of attention here. I've been a bit remiss with respect to reviewing myself, admittedly. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor additional points:

Apologies for having missed this. Addressing now. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noriega himself has provided varying dates of birth
    Done.
  • "he was given a [[officer (armed forces)|commissioned]] as a second lieutenant"
    Done.
  • for 1968 Panamanian Ppresidential election, link 1968 Panamanian general election
    Done.
  • Arias was a member of the National Revolutionary Party that represented the National Revolutionary Party.?
    Should have been "represented the Panamenista movement", with the link going to the movement rather than the party.
  • The sitting Ppresident,
    Done.
  • suggest "he continued to pass intelligence about the plantation workers' activities to the U.S. during this period."
    This, I think, I don't like; the continuation is in passing intelligence, not with respect to plantation workers specifically.
  • suggest "Later, Noriega maintained a close relationship"
    Done.
  • I don't get the sense of "partly due to the latter's Panamanian outpost." what is "the latter"? Panama or the School?
    Fixed; the school had an outpost in Panama.
  • Torrijos' "dirty work" possessive
    Done.
  • U.S. pPresident Richard Nixon
    Done.
  • US$100,000 per MOS:CURRENCY
    Done.
  • director of Central Intelligence is linked to the comedy film, you've already introduced CIA, use that
    Well, the position was Director of Central Intelligence; I've used that link instead (incidentally, before I saw your comment...)
  • stand for Ppresident
    Done
  • link nationalism in the lead and body?
    Done
  • link Defense Intelligence Agency
    Done
  • an ally of Torrijos
    Done
  • Panama Canal Zone, Panameñista Party, Oliver North, Psychological warfare, and cocaine are duplinked in the body
    Removed four of those; I'm going to invoke IAR with respect to the canal zone, because I think the second link is in a helpful place.
  • First Lieutenant Robert Paz
    Done
  • "A total of 23 U.S. soldiers" you shouldn't start sentences with arabic numerals. Alternatively "Twenty-three U.S. soldiers"
    Done
  • link CBS
    Done
  • add (DEA) when Drug Enforcement Administration is introduced
    Done
  • In the game, the fictional character Frank Woods refers to Noriega as "Old Pineapple Face", a nickname originally applied to the President by Panamanians as this has now been added earlier
    Done

That's it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: All done now; apologies for not noticing this set of comments. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is in great shape, Vanamonde. Very happy to support. I've noticed over the years that politico-military leaders (like Roman Emperors, Muslim caliphs etc) can struggle to attract enough attention at Milhist ACR. Let's see if my comment on the Milhist talk page attracts any more reviewers, but as far as I am concerned, this is a potential FAC candidate as it stands now, and if we have to archive it that shouldn't dissuade you from taking it to FAC. Well done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, and I genuinely appreciate the thorough review. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Eddie891[edit]

Will comment shortly. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "was the de facto ruler of Panama" worth piping to List of heads of state of Panama?
    Done.
  • You don't seem to mention "February 11, 1934" as his DOB in the body, despite mentioning it definitively in both the lede and the infobox. Suggest adding "February 11" in the body, and maybe a note for infobox and lede about the uncertainty of his birth.
    I've added a note to the lead and infobox, and clarified in the body. It's a funny situation, wherein the Feb 11 remains consistent, but the year does not.
  • "has been variously described as a cook or a laundress" I'd say "has been variously described as a cook and a laundress" or "was a cook or a laundress", though I'm not sure about the linguistic nuance here.
    Gone with the first.
  • "Neither had a lengthy presence in his life:" Not a fan of how this sounds, especially that you don't really mention what happened to his father, suggest removing it and rephrasing the next two sentences to "His mother died of tuberculosis when he was still a child and Noriega was brought up by a godmother in a one-room apartment in the slum area of Terraplén." or "His mother died of tuberculosis when he was still a child. As a result, Noriega was brought up by a godmother in a one-room apartment in the slum area of Terraplén" or something like that...
    Reworded.
  • I'd link domestic worker because it seems like a particularly relevant topic in its context
    Done
  • "Authors and journalists have suggested that Noriega was in fact " I'd cut "in fact"
    Done
  • "and later at the Instituto Nacional" worth a red-link (or perhaps there's a blue one)?
    added.
  • " He was described as an "oddly serious child,"" Ideally there'd be attribution for this quote, who described him that way?
    It's Frederick Kempe, the journalist who wrote the cited source. I don't know that it's a contentious enough passage to name the source, though...
  • "by his punctilious godmother" I'd consider punctilious a rather unknown term, certainly less known than 'espouse' (the latter is linked in the lede) and perhaps worth a wikt link. However, is it really needed at all?
    Not necessarily...outlooks differ on how plain encyclopedic prose ought to be, but I'm not wedded to it.
  • "He continued to work with the U.S. intelligence services at various points till the 1980s [...] was the first of many payments he would receive from the U.S. for his activities." is this really needed? It's largely been mentioned in the lede and seems a bit like foreshadowing which imo should generally be avoided in the article body. I'd replace with "His first payment from the US was $10.70 in 1955" or something like that
    Fair point, trimmed.
  • "Noriega harbored intentions of becoming a doctor" a bit clunky to me, maybe "Noriega intended to become a doctor" or something like that, not a big deal either way
    Trimmed.
  • The para beginning "Noriega harbored intentions of becoming a doctor," has no dates at all. I'd love to see one or two for the reader to anchor on
    Added one; dates are hard to come by in Noriega's early life
  • "made the acquaintance of Roberto Díaz Herrera" might be worth mentioning why Herrera was in peru?
    Added.
  • "Noriega married Felicidad Sieiro" date?
    Nothing more precise than "late 1960s"
  • "and Noriega a member of the National Guard" I don't think it's worth mentioning that here, if only because it would be more relevant to link Panama National Guard in it's section-- not a big deal either way. Also, should it be 'Panamanian National Guard'? I note that we have a standing redirect at Panamanian National Guard, but not at Panama National Guard
    Well Panamanian is implied here, and the info is here because there's otherwise little to contextualize the marriage, and also because the source considers it relevant to the disapproval from her family.
  • ", protecting him when he ran into trouble" what does this add to the article? Personally I'd cut it.
    Fair enough.
  • " In 1966, Noriega was again involved in a violent incident, allegedly raping a 13-year-old girl and beating her brother. After this Torrijos transferred Noriega to a remote posting." I'd favor putting this after the 1964 paragraph, because they are all violent incidents. In that same vein, if you switch this it's no longer necessary to say "prior to some of these incidents"
    switched
  • When you first mention Dinges, I'd suggest mentioning that he wrote a book (something like John Dinges, in his YEAR book Title), because by introducing him as a journalist, it seems that you are just citing news articles, which isn't the case, I don't think.
    Added
  • "During the various times he spent there" why not just "while at the school,"?
    No good reason...tweaked

That's comments from me through'National Guard career', more to come. These comments are relatively subjective and I'm more than happy to discuss any further, please don't feel that they are 'required'-- indeed, quite a few of them are nothing more then personal preference. Best Eddie891 Talk Work 13:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know it's not necessarily an uncommon word, but I'd recommend linking coup on it's first mention given how central the topic is to this guy
    Added
  • You caption an image "Carter shaking hands with Torrijos after signing the Panama Canal Treaty" but don't mention a Panama Canal Treaty in the article body
    It's one of the Torrijos-Carter treaties, which are mentioned
  • " Noriega would provide intelligence, and carry out covert operations" I don't think that comma is needed
    Removed
  • " He also kept files on several officials within the military, the government, and the judiciary, allowing him to blackmail them later. He also held the positions of head of the political police, and head of immigration." Is the last comma needed? Is there any way you can avoid starting two sentences with "He also" in a row?
    Removed, and tweaked
  • "of the diplomatic consequences involved." perhaps "of potential diplomatic consequences" as nobody could really know for sure what diplomatic consequences would be involved
    Fair. added.
  • " and the U.S. began to see him as the real problem" what does 'real problem' mean here? There's no indication that anybody else was seen as a problem, and we haven't seen a lot of evidence that Noriega was heavily involved in drug trafficing, other than that the US could have indicted him on 'drug charges' (also, it's not clear to an un-discerning reader what 'drug charges' might be-- you can be arrested for a lot of drug-related charges
    I've dropped bit about the charges, and stuck to indictment. Dinges makes it clear that the evidence was that of drug smuggling, but only implies that that's what the charge would have been; so I'd rather keep it simple. Also, reworded the rest.
  • "may have been tried in the early 1970s," does that mean that Dinges thinks there were plots tried or the government considered trying them, or something else?
    He writes that some of the other options "appear to have been tried", but doesn't say which or when. I think this is as much detail as we're going to get.
  • "During the same period of the " I'd cut "the same period of the", imo it's unnecessary here, maybe could be replaced with "Also during the"
    Trimmed
  • I think there are a lot of extraneous commas in this section, i.e. "He was placed on the payroll of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), while he held his position as head of Panamanian intelligence." though I'm awful with commas, so cannot be sure
    I've removed a couple. I do think it's a matter of preference, in those instances.
  • "During the same period of the early 1970s, Noriega's relationship with the U.S. intelligence services was regularized. He was placed on the payroll of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), while he held his position as head of Panamanian intelligence. The CIA made its first regular payment to him in 1971; he had previously been paid by U.S. intelligence services on a case-by-case basis." IMO you basically say the same thing in all of these three sentences. I'd reckon you could condense into one or two that convey 1) he used to be paid a on case-by-case basis 2) his relationship and pay were regularized-- because in this case aren't they virtually synonymous? (beginning in 1971). It's unnecessary to say that the relationship was regularized three different ways three times.
    I don't know that it's entirely redundant, but I've trimmed slightly.
  • "On some occasions, the Panamanian embassy in Managua, the capital of Nicaragua, would be used by U.S. intelligence agents" how, exactly, does this relate to Noriega?
    I checked the source, and it says Noriega used the embassy to collect intel for the US. It's possible I was using a different source when writing it, or that I misread. As that stands, though, it's not very useful because intelligence on the Sandinistas has already been mentioned. Removed.
  • "Noriega also served as the U.S. emissary to Cuba during negotiations following the Johnny Express incident" could benefit from a date?
    December 1971. Added.
  • "The payments were as high" his payments, the contingency funds, or both?
    The contingency funds. Clarified.
  • " selling intelligence on the U.S. to Cuba at the same time" it's unclear to me what it was at the same time as
    Same time as he was working for the CIA; clarified
  • "he declined to do so, because that would have exposed Noriega's role in the matter." who is 'he' here?
    Bush; I'm confused as to why that's ambiguous; he's the only person named there...
  • Were any US intelligence services involved besides the CIA?
    Occasionally, yes; US Army intelligence, for instance. The specifics are not usually discussed, though; the sources often just say "US Intelligence agencies".
  • After the Nicaraguan Revolution was launched against" It's worth immediately mentioning who launched the rebellion, imo
    Added. Already mentioned above, so not linked.
  • "newly appointed a general" link general?
    Done.

That's through 'rise to power'. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "by either buying a controlling stake in them, or by forcing them to shut down" why not "by either buying a controlling stake in them or forcing them to shut down"?
    Done
  • "ivil wars broke out in Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua" worth linking to them?
    Added
  • "A report by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency" worth a date?
    Not obviously available, I'm afraid; Hersh says "recent" but that could mean anything
  • "Noriega's new image" I'm a little unclear on what his new image was, exactly?
    It's a complex set of things, but most prominent among them was that he was perceived as being anti-trafficking. Added that; the rest is possibly a little too much detail, Dinges devotes three whole pages to very subtle things.
  • "before an attack on Colombia's west coast" perhaps "before launching an attack"?
    Added.
  • "5,000 Panamanian passports to the Cuban government for use by its intelligence services" date?
    Not in the source, I'm afraid.
  • "Noriega's direct involvement in moving weapons and drugs declined in the early 1980s" didn't you already talk about this in the above paragraph? I think those two (para beginning "Many of the operations Noriega benefited from were run by associates" and "'Noriega began supplying weapons to the M-19 rebel group in Colombia in 1981") could be integrated better to make it more chronological
    Partially integrated with previous paragraph, where it appeared to flow better; I think paras 3 and 4 there are distinct, as the former is about drugs and the latter, weapons.
  • " including funds and weapons" what about them? Was he conduiting American support by purchasing the weapons and sending funds or was he getting funds to purchase weapons or giving his own funds as a manifestation of American support, or something else?
    As a conduit for both those things...reworded
  • It might be worth replacing some of the U.S.'s with 'American' for variation
    This was actually quite intentional; using "American" to refer to the USA is a colloquialism that's generally okay when referring to regions outside the americas, but in regions where "America" has many meanings, I'd rather not
  • "Bush, now US vice president" you use U.S. everywhere else
    Fixed.
  • " These payments included $76,039" a year or a one-time thing?
    Total, at least according to the source; clarified
  • " At Noriega's trial in 1991–1992, the U.S. government stipulated that it had paid $322,000 to Noriega." I'd split the paragraph here to avoid confusion that the US paid him that for the Iran-Contra affair unless they did-- is there any more detail about his 'role' in the affair?
    There's some, but Dinges describes it as being unconfirmed. That he was reported as playing a role is fact, though, so I've stuck with that.
  • " with 100,000 people, approximately 25% of the population of Panama City, marching in protest on June 26, 1987" any data on protesters outside of the city, and is there a location you can add to where the protest was?
    I'm afraid the English sources do not say. I may be able to find some material if I dug through Spanish newspaper archives, but that seems a little above and beyond due diligence for a detail such as this.
  • "selling intelligence to the Cuban government of Fidel Castro" I thought the CIA was already aware of him selling this intel?
    The CIA yes, the general public not so much; Hersh's report was public.

That's through De facto leader. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "After lengthy and inconclusive talks, the negotiations collapsed a few months later" I think this would be expressed smoother by " Negotiations collapsed after several months of lengthy and inconclusive talks"
    Done
  • "In a December 16 incident," was this one of the three incidents? If so, why do the other two not merit a mention
    The other two incidents are mentioned by Bush in his speech, but aren't given coverage by secondary sources. I'm a little hesitant to even mention them.
  • link US Attorney General?
    Done.
  • " Having threatened to flee to the countryside and lead guerrilla warfare if not given refuge, he instead turned over the majority of his weapons, and requested sanctuary" reads oddly to me. 1st, he demands refuge, 2nd, he turns in his weapons and 3rd begs for refuge?
    I agree it reads oddly, but that's because it's bloody odd behavior...

That's through the US invasion Eddie891 Talk Work 16:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "which the Miami grand jury had returned two years earlier." this is your first time mentioning Miami in the body in the relation to a court...
    It's the "US Court" mentioned above; now clarified.
  • " Noriega was reported to have undergone a full conversion" conversion from what?
    Catholicism. Added.
  • "In 1999, the Panamanian government had sought the extradition" I'd add " from the U.S." since we were just talking about france, an unaware reader might forget.
    Added.
  • " Santo Tomas hospital" you previously call it " Hospital Santo Tomás"
    Fixed

That's prosecution and death sections, last two to come in a bit-- Real life calls. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "A 2017 obituary stated " maybe 'a 2017 obituary published in the BBC' or something similar?
    Added
  • "A reviewer wrote that "the hair-raising career " could use the name and publication
    Added
  • "oriega is mentioned in season 1 episode 5 of the National Geographic documentary Dictators Rulebook" is this really worth a mention?
    Probably not. Drive-by editors love to drop in popular culture mentions that secondary sources ignore.
  • I'd expect at least a mention of Sarah York in the body, given that her whole articles notability hinges on the fact that she was a pen-pal with Noriega
    I'm not certain that follows; she's notable for that one thing; he was essentially a head of state for many years; but okay. added.
  • Cite #11 wants a publication date
    Done
  • cite 86 has the error "Cite journal requires |journal= (help)"
    Fixed, I think? Someone monkeyed with the scripts I used to use to highlight ref errors, and I can't seem to spot them any more, despite trying a fix...
  • What makes IMDB (cite 131) a reliable source?
    Well, the source is the film; imdb was supplied for convenience, I suppose. I've edited the url to go a page more useful for someone looking for the film, but the url isn't going to be the source, it's the film itself.
  • I'm slightly concerned at how many further reading books there are, but the article seems comprehensive enough to me
    Well, if you look through the entries, you'll see they're very detailed explorations of specific issues that are touched on in this article but cannot really be examined in detail here (we're at ~9k words already...) such as the legal case, and the history of cocaine.

That's it from me, really great article and just a fascinating topic. Please ping me once you've responded to all-- it will make me far more likely to remember to come back. Apologies if this review is a bit much, I got excited when reading through! Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 00:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: I think that's everything. Your review certainly gave me a lot of work to do, but I do appreciate the attention to detail; you've really helped tighten the prose. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really great work on this article, I’m now happy to support. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Woody[edit]

A good read with a few comments from me:

  • "who at one point expressed a desire for a divorce, though she changed her mind later." This seems a bit woolly/vague to me. Are there any specifics?
    Kempe has a very colorful story about this, but it's very detail makes it suspect, and I'd rather stick to the bare bones
    Should it be in there at all if it is suspect? I'm not sure it adds much.
    I think it's the appropriate level of detail; we don't need three pages of how Sieiro's brother and Noriega had a Mexican standoff in a bar after the brother found out Noriega had been making his sister sad, but his unfaithfulness, and her evident frustration, seem worth documenting, and if those are false then Kempe is completely making stuff up, rather than simply relying on a single interview, which would explain the rest.
  • "Authors and journalists have suggested that Noriega was the illegitimate son of his father and his father's domestic worker, whose family name was Moreno." Same here as well as seeming a bit tabloidy. This is essentially gossip. You could make it more specific ie Kempe and Galvan have stated...etc
    This isn't actually gossip; that Noriega's mother was the domestic worker is accepted; the uncertainty is over whether his parents were married, I think, with some sources (Galvan and Kempe) stating they were not, and others (Dinges) saying that it's uncertain. I've added a snippet from Dinges about this.
    I don't like the phrase "authors and journalists" here, to me they appear to be weasel words: I would state which authors and journalists.
    I've reworded slightly; I don't like naming the authors every time, as it makes the text less accessible to the lay person (I think) and also adds length
  • "Torrijos helped Noriega avoid legal trouble after a prostitute accused Noriega of beating and raping her." I think such a claim needs a direct citation. (I would probably just move the next citation to here and leave the next sentence being cited by the one at the end of the para.
    Done.
  • "Several prisoners said that they had been tortured; others stated they had been raped in prison" So what? Do the sources link this to Noriega. If not, why is it relevant to Noriega? If they do, we need to state that.
    It happened under his command, and he was held responsible, as the next sentence says.
    The next sentence says "The brutality of Noriega's activities" This could just be me but it could relate to something else other than this immediate incident. Was he suspended solely for his treatment of these specific prisoners or was it more general?
    It was the entire "suppress the opposition" episode; I've reworded to clarify
  • "in just a year and a half," 18 months would be more concise.
    Done.
  • "During his flight Noriega reportedly took shelter with several supportive politicians, including Balbina Herrera, the mayor of San Miguelito.[137] The last two days of his flight were spent partly with his ally Jorge Krupnick." Who reported it? The second sentence here is redundant without explanation. Who is Jorge Krupnick?
    Krupnick isn't very well known. Kempe describes him as an arms dealer, which I've added.
  • "Psychological warfare specialists were brought in to attempt to dislodge Noriega, including blaring rock music, and turning a nearby field into a helicopter landing zone." Psychological warfare specialists turned a field into a helicopter landing zone?
    I've added some detail here; the specialists seem to have stuck to the music, but the landing zone was actually built, presumably to make it even noisier.

That's about it from me. Woody (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Woody: Thanks for the review; I think I've addressed everything. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good for A-Class and is a good read. It certainly enlightened me on a period I didn't know much about. I've responded to a couple of your comments but they don't preclude it passing. Woody (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I've made a couple further tweaks. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:22, 26 July 2020 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Invasion of Kagera[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk)

Invasion of Kagera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

In 1978 under extremely confused and unclear circumstances, Uganda's armed forces attacked Kagera, a small region in northern Tanzania and occupied it, killing civilians and looting property. Unamused by this hostility, Tanzania launched a counter-attack that saw the Ugandans withdraw from Kagera. This marked the opening chapter of the Uganda–Tanzania War which ultimately saw the overthrow of Ugandan President Idi Amin, and this battle was the only part of the war that took place on Tanzanian soil. This article has passed a GA review and I think it is ready for A-class review, with an eye on one day making it an FA. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — pass[edit]

Sources all look reliable and correctly formatted. I'm not turning up any new information with simple search methods. No source checks done because of nominator's history. buidhe 11:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: Sorry, these are a bit scatterbrained. I've not been feeling well. Anyway, I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • citation 96: "John Darnton" --> "Darnton, John"
    • Done.
  • in the References, Borders, boundaries, peoples, and states : a comparative analysis of post-independence Tanzania-Uganda border regions: remove the space before the colon
    • Done.
  • same as above for the the title of the Legum source
    • Done.
  • According to this account, Kiiza was promoted to captain and commander of the MiG-21 squadron after returning to Entebbe.[87] This cannot be the case, however, as Kiiza was already lieutenant colonel and head of the MiG-21 squadron since before the Uganda–Tanzania War: suggest attributing the contrary opinion here
    • Both sides attributed.
  • "guerillas" --> "guerrillas" if using British English variation?
    • Done.
  • that the Kagera Salient—a 1865 square kilometre (720 square mile) stretch of land between the official border and the Kagera River 29 kilometres (18 miles) to the south, should: suggest adding an emdash where the comma is after the word "south"
    • Done.
  • "neighboring" --> "neighbouring" ?
    • Done.
  • Only one Tanzanian company: suggest linking company here
    • Done.
  • a fight between an Ugandan woman --> "a fight between a Ugandan woman"?
    • I mean, a vowel is a vowel? I Googled this and found no definitive answer for what the grammar rule is.
      • G'day, my understanding is that it relates to the beginning sound, not so much the letter. In this case it seems to make a consonant sound "yoo" rather than "oo", so it would be "a Ugandan": [50] AustralianRupert (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @AustralianRupert: Done. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • but concurred that the incident occurred --> "but agreed that the incident occurred"? (suggestion to vary the language here)
    • done.
  • several different variations of this account, which was mostly --> "several different variations of this account, which were mostly"?
    • Done.
  • messaged Singano via radio --> "contacted" rather than messaged?
    • Done
  • had advanced 15 kilometres (9.32057 miles) into Uganda: this level of precision in the conversion seems unnecessary (9.3 km is probably enough to enable readers to conceptualise the distance here)
    • Truncated.
  • However, the explosions' reverberations: the apostrophe doesn't seem necessary here
    • It seems grammatically correct, as the reverberations did "belong" to the explosions.
      • Actually, looking at this again, I think you are correct; apologies. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • agents got in a shootout in Kampala --> "agents took part in a shootout in Kampala"?
    • Changed to "engaged in a shootout"
  • observation posts reported Ugandan manoeuvers --> "manoeuvres" if you are using British English variation
    • Done.
  • link platoon
    • Done.
  • The Tanzanians used a Bailey bridge (example pictured) to cross the Kagera River and launch their counter-attack: suggest (example from World War II pictured)" to make it clear that the image doesn't relate to the war that is the subject of the article
    • Clarified as "example in British service".
  • concluded successfully in 2001: do we know the result of this -- did the border remain the same, or was it moved?
    • It appears that the border was restored to whatever the two parties agreed to be its original condition, but the source does not comment on the details of the arrangement.
  • "labor" -->"labour" if using British English
    • Done.
  • "defenses" --> "defences" (as above)
    • Done.

@AustralianRupert: I have responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added my support now. regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape. I did a cheeky c/e of the lead (feel free to revert if I've changed meaning), and have some additional comments:

Lead
  • suggest linking counter-attack, although perhaps offensive would be a better word here and elsewhere, as a counter-attack is usually temporally adjacent to the attack, and there was quite a gap between the invasion and the offensive to retake the salient
    • Done.
  • suggest The situation remained bleak→Tensions remained high
    • Done.
  • suggest dissension→dissent
    • Done.
  • suggest "incursions into the Kagera region"
    • Done.
  • suggest "The armyUgandans attacked again"
    • Done.
  • "after being assured by his commanders" of what?
    • Changed to after being assured by his commanders of his country's military capability to react.
  • link mobilisation
    • Done.
  • link battalion
    • Done.
  • suggest "Uganda Army officers concentrated on looting and ignored intelligence reports of Tanzanian plans"
    • Done.
  • "a claim which was bitterly contested by Tanzania" what were they contesting? That Uganda was withdrawing, or that it was Amin's decision alone and not the result of TPDF actions?
    • A bit of both, I believe.
  • link Pontoon bridge
    • Done.
  • suggest "beyond expelling the Ugandans from Tanzanian territory"
    • Done.
  • "heNyerere ordered the TPDF to attack Uganda,..."
    • Done.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest linking Kagera (region) at first mention in the body
    • Done.
  • suggest use of convert templates for distances and areas, or at least put a comma in 1865→1,865 the convert template does it automatically. I already did it in the lead, just copy/paste.
    • Done.
  • suggest should be placed under its jurisdiction→should be ceded to Uganda (as per my change to the lead)
    • Done.
  • "Amin violently purged members of southern ethnic groups"
    • Done.
  • suggest Obote's partisans→Obote's irregular troops
    • Done.
  • suggest linking Brigadier
    • Done.

Down to Prelude. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest "and favoritism oftowards Nubian troops"
    • done.
  • suggest "the curtailing of the powers of the State Research Bureau, Amin's secret police"
    • Done.
  • who is Lumago?
    • He was the sacked army chief of staff. Clarified.
  • suggest "According to the refugees, Amin had invaded..."
    • Done.
  • suggest "Several Uganda Army soldiers, including Colonel Abdu Kisuule, blamed Lieutenant Colonel Juma Butabika for starting the war. Kisuule accused Butabika of engineering an incident at the border to create a pretext for invading Tanzania"
  • suggest "Among the incidents identified as possible start points for the war"
    • Done.
  • is there a rank for Rwehururu?
    • Sources disagree on the rank he held at the time; some say major, others say colonel. He was in charge of the Suicide Battalion/Regiment, and most other Ugandan commanders who had responsibility over units of parity were lieutenant colonels. Ultimately I thought it best to leave it unspecified here.
  • from the military:.
    • Done.
  • suggest "According to this version of events, the invasion was intended as a suicide mission"
    • Done.
  • "upon reentering to Uganda"
    • Done.
  • suggest "and mutinied with some of his some troops, attacking the Sudanese members of the Simba Battalion" unless the entire Simba Battalion was Sudanese
    • Done.
  • suggest "whereupon they invaded Tanzania"→"resulting in the invasion of Tanzania"
    • Done.
  • suggest "the bombings caused little damage, but the explosions shattered windows and caused panic"
    • Done.
  • suggest virulently→severely
    • Done.

Down to Invasion. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "opposite of Mutukula"
    • Done
  • "Over 2,000 Ugandan soldiers"
    • Done.
  • "Lieutenant Colonel Juma Butabika, and Colonel Abdu Kisuule" as these gents and their ranks have already been introduced
    • Done.
  • 122 mm mortars? I'm not aware of any country that has produced 122 mm mortars, 120 mm being the standard heavy mortar calibre for both the Eastern Bloc and NATO. It seems much more likely that this was a 122 mm howitzer and 120 mm mortars. Could you re-check the source?
    • Avirgan & Honey do indeed state 122mm mortars, and like you I'm also finding that 122mm seems to be limited to howitzers. It is possible they are incorrect; they've misidentified pieces of military equipment in their narratively solid work before, and cross referencing with Cooper et. al. (who are more familiar with such equipment) I've been able to fix it. However, Cooper et. al. does not say anything here.
      • OK, in that case, the best approach is to change them to 120 mm mortars and 122 mm howitzers, and add a note that Avirgan & Honey say the opposite. A search of Google Books for Tanzanian artillery and mortar calibres reinforces that they are clearly wrong, see [51] and [52]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest using convert templates for all distances, calibres etc

Down to Second attack. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • for minefields link Land mine
    • Done.
  • "were killed after stepping on explosivesmines"
    • Done.
  • "Marajani had his troops advance with caution" but wasn't Gowon in charge?
    • Err, it's not entirely clear, since the info comes from two different reputable sources which don't mention the other commander. I've altered it to read the Ugandan troops advanced with caution to avoid the conflict.
  • "Marajani ordered the Uganda Army" surely as a LTCOL he didn't have this authority? Gowon?
    • Not as you would think. The army was so corrupt and mismanaged that essentially whichever soldier could garner enough influence among his subordinates or the favor of Amin could command whatever force. Read more here: Uganda Army (1971–1980).
  • is "house-servants" a euphemism for something? slavery?
    • Clarified that this wasn't necessarily the women. House servants is just the term the source used, probably only domestic labor, against their will of course.
  • "concubines" seems to be used inappropriately here as a euphemism for sex slavery
    • Perhaps, but it is the word the source uses.
  • suggest "In total, $108 million worth of economic assets was lost"
    • Done.
  • "were met with heavy Tanzanian anti-aircraft fire" but hadn't the TPDF pulled back to Katolo?
    • They did, but Colonel Singano's unit returned and established a position atop the high ground near the south end of the Kyaka bridge.
  • suggest "after an entire day had passed"
    • Done.
  • suggest "Though they deprecateddenounced Uganda's actions"
    • Done.

Down to Tanzanian counter-attack. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest "Nyerere ordered Tanzania to undertake full mobilisation for war"
    • Done.
  • which brigade were the Tabora troops from?
    • Probably the 202nd Brigade, which was headquartered there, but Avirgan & Honey do not explicitly say this.
    • NM, it was indeed this brigade. Cooper et al specifies. Added.
  • to martial→to marshal, martial is only ever an adjective, never a verb
    • Done.
  • President Machel, as he has already been introduced
    • Done.
  • suggest "As active members of the Frontline States, both were"
    • Done.
  • suggest "to efforts toaimed at ending"
    • Done.
  • so, the Tanzanian battalion was on Mozambican territory?
    • Yes; this was part of the Frontline States' efforts to guard against Rhodesia and support anti-apartheid guerrillas during the Rhodesian Bush War.
  • did the Mozambican battalion come under the command of the Southern Brigade?
    • It seems very little is known about the Mozambican battalion that came to Kagera other than it was stationed in the area alongside the Tanzanian troops. It probably operated under Tanzanian direction but this is not confirmed by any reliable source.
  • "Gowon in particular was later blamed"
    • Done.
  • suggest "Largely ignorant of military strategy and tactics"
    • Done.
  • "destroying the Kyaka Bridge"
    • Done.
  • perhaps use a different word for the second (or first) use of pledge

Down to Operation Chakaza. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • which brigades were represented in the counter-offensive force?
    • Avirgan & Honey do not explicitly specify. The brigade led by Luhanga was likely the Southern Brigade, Mayunga's was probably the 206th, and Marwa's was probably whatever became the 208th. The TPDF's reorganisation during this time and right after, before the invasion of Uganda, led to some name changes, which makes identifying brigades more complicated.
  • "of the troops, whichand initiated"
    • Done.
  • "Tanzanian patrols began exploring the area"
    • Done.

Down to Aftermath. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • drop link to Mutukula as it has already been linked
    • Done.
  • suggest "in the displaced persons camps" and link Refugee camp
    • Done.
  • suggest changing counter-attack to counter-offensive throughout when referring to Operation Chazaka
    • Done.

That's me done, finally. Mostly prose stuff, but a few other queries/suggestions. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indy beetle Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been making gradual progress on this; the coronavirus pandemic has sorta upended everything in real life. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're done PM? If so then I can start tomorrow with mine. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Indy beetle, just a reminder that these three from Peacekeeper still need addressing. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also Kagera (region) is duplinked in the Initial actions section, and Mbarara in the Second attack section. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Indy beetle, once the above outstanding items are addressed, I am planning to support. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having made the necessary changes myself, I am now supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • I do have some comments here but I'll wait until PM has done his review maybe he will mention my comments. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know what the end date was in the infobox?
    • No, the end date for this conflict is somewhat vague. Most of the fighting was over in November and most Ugandan troops apparently withdrew, but the TPDF didn't reestablish full control of the region until early January.
  • the official border and the Kagera River 29 kilometres (18 miles) to the south Per MOS:UNITNAMES long units should be fully once mentioned and then need to be abbreviated.
    • Done.
  • beneficiaries of his actions were Muslim northerners Is there a specific name for these kinda people?
    • Sometimes these people are given the catch-all label of "Nubian", but this is not technically accurate. I think the following statement about most of these people being Nubian or Sudanese satisfies comprehensiveness.
  • Amin and soldiers loyal to the Vice President of Uganda No hyphen in Vice President?
    • I've seen it styled both ways; I have no real preference though.
  • who held significant power in the government Per MOS:INSTITUTIONS government should be capitalised. Also by this, this, this and this it looks like this more a British English thing even though found some sources from Canada and Australia.
    • That appears to be an incorect reading of MOS, it actually says not to capitalise in the example you've listed above, because its a generic reference to "the government", not "the Ugandan Government" or "Government of Uganda".
  • were moving within 4.8 kilometres (three miles) of Ugandan border towns --> "were moving within 4.8 km (3 mi) of Ugandan border towns"
    • Done.
  • In July, Radio Uganda erroneously declared No link for Radio Uganda?
    • Done.
  • revolted at Bondo, while other uprisings took place in Tororo, Masaka, Mbarara, Mutukula, and Kampala Looks like something major is there a link for this revolt?
    • No. It's important to remember that this is all "allegedly" - the mutinies are essentially a rumour-turned-theory for how the war broke out, and there's little detail on how these apparently progressed other than supposedly leading to desertion and an invasion of Kagera. Unrest in the Uganda Army was also rather common by this point, and though while particularly revolts (with much more consensus on their historical occurrence) do stand out, the best quality sources don't offer much on these other than their purported role in igniting the war. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue later on. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The circumstances surrounding the outbreak of the war are not clear Isn't it "were" because the war is over?
    • Er, depends how you read it. I meant to convey that even as of today nobody really knows what happened.
  • Refugees claimed that several dissatisified Ugandan officers allegedly met at Kabamba on 27 October and drafted a 12‐point petition to Amin, demanding the end of corruption, factionalism, and favouritism towards Nubian troops; the curtailing of powers of the State Research Bureau, Amin's secret police; the reinstatement of Adrisi and former army chief of staff Isaac Lumago; the enforcement of religious tolerance; and an end of the alliance with Arab powers. This is a long sentence; maybe split it?
  • decision until later and went along with it to save face What's a save face?
    • Forgive me for use of the idiomatic phrase. To "save face" means doing something to keep your reputation intact and avoid others losing respect for you. I generally try to avoid using such colloquialisms on Wikipedia, but I couldn't find another satisfactory and succinct way of putting what Amin was supposedly trying to do. If you have a better idea I'm all ears.
  • troops would be killed upon reentering Uganda Reentering should be re-entering by Ngram.
    • Done.
  • Kagera salient vs Kagera Salient
    • Capitalised.
  • Tanzania had tense relations with Zaire, Kenya, and Malawi Not a lot of people know where Zaire was; maybe add a note here where it explained that it was the former name of the DRC?
    • Well, it is wikilinked, so people can click on it to see where it was. Plus some people still refer to the DRC as Congo-Zaire to distinguish it from the smaller Congo, so I don't think any extra explanation is necessary.
  • so Singano requested that his 120 mm mortars Add a convert template here and remove the second time mentioned 120 mm's template.
  • Tanzanian troops had advanced 15 kilometres (9.3 miles) into Uganda --> "Tanzanian troops had advanced 15 km (9.3 mi) into Uganda"
    • Done.
  • at his headquarters in Kyaka, 32 kilometres (20 mi) --> "at his headquarters in Kyaka, 32 km (20 mi)"
    • Done.
  • the unit set up its artillery 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) --> "the unit set up its artillery 10 km (6.2 mi)"
    • Done.
  • they successfully shot down a MiG Shouldn't it be an "an"?
    • I'm not sure how "MiG" is pronounced. M is consonant, though.
      • Sorry, but I disagree with the advice here; "an MiG" is not grammatically correct, IMO. The word "an" usually proceeds a vowel sound. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it's not grammatically correct in English but in my native tongue you'd give an "em" sound instead of just a "m". I probably got confused by it, even though English grammar rules do not make that big of a difference of my native language. But I were 100% sure you'd say the M as an "em" but whatever. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rest will follow soon. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see a lot of "kilometres"; by MOS:UNITNAMES we should write only long units once and from then on use symbols.
    • That's due to the convert templates, which render kilometres in full. I'll have to "hardcode" in the lengths and conversion manually.
  • while others were employed at the Kinyala Sugar Works Was this a company?
    • Based on my research it was a joint private/state-owned enterprise. I think the source was referring to a specific facility, though.
  • the charges at dawn, destroying the 75 metre (246 ft) centre section Compound adjective here.
  • In British English specific national governments should be capitalised by these sources: The Telegraph, Civil Servant, Univerity of Sussex, Gov.ie Oxford and I also found out that it's also popular in Australia and Canada. MOS:INSTITUTIONS also mentions it.
    • All mentions of national governments e.g. "Tanzanian Government" now capitalised. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More is coming. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tanzanian Government made its first public acknowledgment American acknowledgment.
  • had occupied territory in the northwest portion American northwest.
    • Hyphenated.
  • invasion as Ugandan aggression: Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia, Didier Ratsiraka of Madagascar, Agostinho Neto of Angola, Seretse Khama of Botswana, Samora Machel of Mozambique, and Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia It maybe become handy if we add their titles at the time at their first mention; which I believe is here?
  • OAU chairman Edem Kodjo privately confided Not sure of "chairman" should be capitalised.
  • displaced persons camps were minimal or nonexistent --> "displaced persons camps were minimal or non-existent" per Ngram.
    • Done.
  • Uganda and Tanzania on reestablishing a complete Per Ngram it should be "re-establishing".
    • Done.
  • land within 100 metres of the border Convert?
    • Done.
  • Unlink Africa in the image "File:LocationUganda&Tanzania.png".
    • Done.
  • Do we know what the casualties were in the infobox and body?
    • The only complete estimate is on Tanzanian civilian deaths, which are put at about 1,500 killed by Ugandan troops. There is no total for Tanzanian soldier casualties, though we know 1 soldier was killed and three wounded when clearing a land mine and an unspecified few died in traffic accidents. There is no info on Ugandan casualties.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Was waiting until Indy has replied to my comments back. I assume I was too busy to keep an eye over here. But it looks good to go in my view. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review – pass[edit]

Will look at this Векочел (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problems here Векочел (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Vanamonde[edit]

I will make some copy-edits as I go; feel free to revert me if you disagree with anything, and if it's substantive, we can discuss it here.

  • Am I correct in thinking "a 1,865 square kilometres (720 sq mi) stretch of land" should read "a 1,865 square kilometre (720 sq mi) stretch of land", and if so, some finessing of that template may be required?
    • Fixed manually. I'm not very good with convert templates.
  • Linking Salient (geography) at some point would likely be helpful.
    • Done.
  • I rather suspect most folks writing about the expulsion of Asians now would use "ethnic asians" and "ethnic Africans to distinguish the groups involved; by modern conventions, the current wording would imply the immigrants were not ugandans, though I know conventions have shifted over time.
    • Changed as requested, as this is factually the case. However, I would note that most modern sources still just refer to these people as "Asians" [53][54][55], even ones which stress that many of these people were of Ugandan nationality [56].
  • "his charismatic abilities" reads odd to me; I'd just say "abilities", unless there's a specific reason to mention his charisma.
    • That's per the source; Amin would sometimes make appearances at various garrisons and make speeches and promises to them, which could mollify their dissatisfaction.
      • I'm not going to make a fuss over it, but it sounds non-idiomatic to me.
  • "visits with his troops" is ambiguous, though this is likely an ENGVAR problem; is he visiting the troops, or taking them with him on visits?
    • Changed to "meetings".
  • "dispatched several agents to eliminate a battalion" sounds like a handful of soldiers was sent against a much larger force...is this accurate?
    • Changed to "squads" per the source.
  • There's quite a few uses of "allegedly", which always makes me a bit uncomfortable; I'd prefer "according to [whoever said it]", unless you don't actually know that and the sources are actually just saying "allegedly" with no further context.
    • I've changed some instances to the more neutral "reportedly", but the sourcing in these instances is often vague as to the exact origin of certain narratives.
  • "Refugees claimed" what refugees are these?
    • Ugandan refugees. Clarified.
  • Are the "more mundane explanations for the invasion" all still arguing that Butabika was responsible? if so, this could be stated explicitly; it would make the paragraph a lot less confusing.
    • The only mundane explanation that explicitly involves Butabika is the bar fight theory.
  • Is there no link for "Kinyankole language"? I did a quick search, and found that two articles about this conflict are the only ones which use the term...odd, to say the least.
  • There's a sentence about the OAU's position in both paragraphs of "international reactions", and a seeming redundancy between them; can you collect it, or reduce the redundancy in some other way?
    • I don't think there's much redundancy. One paragraph deals with the immediate reactions of governments and institutions to the invasion, the other deals with mediation efforts.
  • Do we know when Nyerere ordered mobilization?
    • Probably 2 November, since that is when Nyerere made is big speech declaring war on Uganda. However, the source is not specific on this.
  • I think "brigade" might be worth linking
    • Done.
  • "In contrast, Amin allegedly realised his precarious situation" to a non-specialist, it isn't obvious why Amin's situation is precarious; he's sitting on enemy territory protected by a river with comparable numbers of troops.
    • I don't think it's a stretch to call his situation precarious or requires specialist knowledge to understand it; his troops are about to face a counteroffensive and he has little to no international support for his military adventure.
  • "Kagera River via pontoon bridge" shouldn't it be "a pontoon bridge" or "pontoon bridges"?
    • I don't think that is necessarily required; Merriam-Webster has examples including "He did some research via computer."
  • There are quite a few uses of the word "claimed" sprinkled throughout. Some of these are justified, since they are referring to verifiably false claims, but in other cases a synonym may be more appropriate, per WP:CLAIM.
    • I've changed a few instances of this; I think the rest rightfully imply that the assertion they precede is suspect.
  • "By early January all Ugandan troops had been ejected from Kagera" this implies there had still been troops there when the diplomats visits etc, described in the previous paragraph, were occurring; this is an implied contradiction that isn't really addressed
    • It's a question that remains unanswered. It's quite possible that all Ugandan troops had left by the end of November, but Tanzanian forces only completely reestablished their hold on the territory in early January.
      • In that case, I'd suggest phrasing it as "all Ugandan troops are known to have left..." which makes it clear that they may have left earlier, but that information isn't available.
        • [B]y early January 1979, all Uganda forces had been expelled from Tanzanian soil is what the source says. I've also just re-read a relevant page in Avirgan & Honey which says between late November and January minor clashes happened in the border region between the Ugandans and Tanzanians, which suggests that the Ugandans were still violating the border after Amin's declared withdrawal.
          • Okay, that addresses my concern.
  • "to avenge the pillaging in Kagera" is this phrasing used by the source in its own voice? I doubt you mean it that way, but it almost comes across as Wikipedia saying these killings were justified.
    • The exact phrase is "The Tanzanians had begun to take their revenge". I didn't mean to imply that what the TPDF did to Mutukula was "justified"; only to stress that their motivation for destroying the town lay in their anger for what had happened in Kagera. As you can read at Battle of Mutukula, President Nyerere was actually horrified by what they did.
  • The article implies that Tanzania was in a position to see a severe economic fallout from the war, but doesn't actually discuss the economic fallout beyond the tax; is there not information available?
    • It is mentioned here that an estimated $108 million worth of economic assets were lost in Kagera. Most sources don't talk about the economic impacts of the specific invasion on Tanzania as much as they talk about the economic impacts of the wider war. Thus, I put most of the information regarding the war's impact on the economy at Uganda–Tanzania War.
      • I think a sentence or two summarizing that would help a lot here. As it is, it feels like the article is leaving that hanging a little bit.
        • Ok, I've added Scholars' estimates of the total direct costs of the entire war for the Tanzanians range from $500 million to $1 billion.
  • In the "resettlement" section, I'd recommend duplicating links to those cities; without further context, it's just a list of names, so I think IAR with respect to OVERLINK would be justified.
    • It's not really a matter of overlinking; most of those localities are incredibly small and thus no Wikipedia articles for them exist. Just Mutukula (Tanzania) and Bukoba have their own articles, and both of those towns feature repeatedly in the larger narrative so I don't think relinking them would be necessary.
  • The distinction between the aftermath and legacy sections is tenuous, to me. I'd prefer to see them combined. It's mostly a matter of preference, though, so I won't press you.
    • Perhaps the naming of those sections is an issue; I think they are more thematically different, since one deals with the more immediate effects and the other deals with the more long-lasting ones.
  • I know you've had a source review, but I can't help but wonder at the use of the film. I assume it's a documentary, but even so, is the detail it's used for something that the producers say in their own voice? or is it an interviewee speaking?
    • It was a Tanzanian government-produced documentary on the war effort. The fact is stated by the narrator and is shown on-screen.

Generally, this is excellent work based on obviously messy source material. Nicely done, and I expect to support once my concerns are addressed. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Vanamonde, how are the responses looking? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: The responses so far are fine, but there's a couple of comments, and one reply, still outstanding. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: I think I've gotten to all of them now. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Support', as I think you've done all you can to address my concerns and none of the minor bits that remain are a deal-breaker. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:37, 21 July 2020 (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 Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Tennessee-class battleship[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Tennessee-class battleship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

It's been a while since we've had an American battleship or class at higher levels of review, so I figure it's time to bring one up. The two Tennessees remained in the US Navy's inventory for nearly 40 years, but of course, their most notable service came during World War II; both were damaged at Pearl Harbor, though only California seriously so. They formed part of the bombardment group that supported amphibious assaults across the central Pacific, and were present at Surigao Strait, the last action between battleships ever fought. As always, thanks to those who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

First the Spanish and now the Americans' comeback. :)

  • Tennessee took part in the Aleutian Islands Campaign Decapitalise "campaign" here.
    • Done
  • Tennessee and California both took part in the Philippines Campaign Same as above and I believe a "they" instead of the ships' names.
    • Done
  • Therefore, the new ship's ability to resist underwater attack You mean "class" or do you mean "Tennessee"?
    • At that point, the class hadn't been named - the project was still referred to as "Battleship 1916"
  • Ships of the Tennessee class were 600 feet (180 m) long at the waterline I think "Ships of" is unnecessary.
    • Removed
  • They displaced 32,300 long tons (32,818 t) standard, and 33,190 long tons (33,723 t) at full combat load Link both normal and full load.
    • Done
  • which significantly increased displacement to 37,947.5 long tons (38,556.4 t) Ehm, that's a little bit too detailed.
    • Rounded
  • The ships' propulsion systems were rated at 28,600 shaft horsepower (21,300 kW) --> "Their propulsion systems were rated at 28,600 shaft horsepower (21,300 kW)"
    • Done
  • On speed trials, Tennessee reached a maximum of 21.378 knots (39.592 km/h; 24.601 mph) That's really detailed?
    • Rounded
  • The ships had a cruising range of 8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km; 9,200 mi) at a speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph) --> "They had a cruising range of 8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km; 9,200 mi) at a speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph)"
    • Done
  • Since Tennessee and California had been completed after the Battle of Jutland Which year?
    • Added
  • The ships' main armored belt was 8–13.5 in (203–343 mm) thick --> "Their main armored belt was 8–13.5 in (203–343 mm) thick"
    • Done
  • The ships underwent a series of minor modifications to their secondary and anti-aircraft --> "The Tennessees underwent a series of minor modifications to their secondary and anti-aircraft"
    • Done
  • The ships' weapons suite was also overhauled --> "Their weapons suite was also overhauled"
    • Done
  • ashore to assist with relief after the 1933 Long Beach earthquake.[22][21] re-oder the refs here.
    • Fixed
  • Pipe Hawaii to the Territory of Hawaii.
    • Done
  • when the Japanese attacked the fleet at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 Pipe Japanese to the Empire of Japan.
    • Done, but earlier
  • forcing her up against the concrete quay.[6][22][21] Re-oder the refs here.
    • Done
  • fleet in May 1943 in time to participate in the Aleutian Islands Campaign Decapitalise "campaign" here.
    • This is what happens when I write an article before we have lengthy discussions on capitalization...
  • Japanese defenders and targeting defensive strongpoints.[22][21] Re-oder the refs here.
    • Fixed
  • During the fighting on Tinian, Tennessee was hit by Japanese field artillery and slightly damaged.[22][21] Re-oder the refs here.
    • Fixed
  • triggered the Japanese to launch Operation Shō-Gō 1 Why is "Operation Shō-Gō 1" redirect to the Battle of Battle of Leyte Gulf?
    • There isn't an article on the plan
  • resulted in the Battle of Leyte Gulf on 23–26 October.[22][21] Re-oder the refs here.
    • Fixed
  • of the complex battle, the action of Surigao Strait, on the night of 24–25 October --> "of the complex battle, the action of Surigao Strait, on the night of 24/25 October"
    • Done
  • the Allied fleet destroyed the Japanese Southern Force Was this a proper noun? If so is there a link too?
    • Not an article - there's the redirect Southern Force, but that just points to the Leyte Gulf article
  • only one Japanese destroyer escaped the overwhelming Do we know which one?
    • Yes, but I don't figure it's a relevant detail in this article
  • though by then the fighting ashore was in its final stages.[22][21][28] Re-oder the refs here.
    • Fixed
  • {{xt| sold for scrap on 10 July, and thereafter broken up.[22][21] Same as above.
    • Done

So that's it from me. Not much to say. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Parsecboy: Hey mate it's almost 20 days ago when I made my review and is it me or is there no progress made in those almost 3 weeks? Just a friendly reminder. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, I don't know if you've noticed, but these French protected cruiser articles aren't going to write themselves ;) Parsecboy (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D[edit]

I'm highly tempted to support this article without reading it simply on the grounds of the excellent infobox photo, but that might set a bad precedent! I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • The first sentence is a bit clunky: especially the " and were named Tennessee and California" part: I'd suggest re-wording or splitting here.
    • I was trying something new - sometimes new isn't always better ;)
  • "The problem was eventually corrected with the Mark VII gun" - were these guns fitted to the battleships, and if so when?
    • Friedman doesn't say when, unfortunately. Cracknell mentions the Mark VII guns in passing, but not when they were installed
  • Why were the ships so extensively reconstructed in 1942-43? It seems an interesting and possibly unwise decision to have taken two elderly battleships out of service for such a long period when the USN was in a pretty difficult situation and space in dockyards was in high demand. What was the intended role of these ships, and did the returns justify the investment?
    • In a nutshell, the USN lacked the logistical support to operate the carriers and the battleships, so the Navy wasn't really giving anything up with the reconstructions. And Tennessee was already back in service by the time there was enough of a buildup of supplies and troops for the Aleutian campaign. I've never seen anyone do a cost/benefit analysis of the reconstructions, but I imagine the increases in anti-aircraft firepower were greatly appreciated off Okinawa at the very least
  • "The new towers had been removed from one of the Brooklyn-class cruisers that had recently been rebuilt" - do you know which one?
    • No, I haven't seen any recording of what towers went where
  • "but she saw no active operations owing to the crippling fuel shortage in the Pacific at the time" - I can't see where this is in the DANFS entry on Tennessee, which says instead that she and the other old battleships in Task Force 1 were too slow to be of much value during this period
    • Apparently I forgot to add the cite from the Tennessee article - good catch
  • The sentence starting with "Both ships were ready for action" is a bit over-complex and repetitive.
    • Reworded - see if that works better
  • As always, I worry about the heavy reliance on DANFS for details of the ships' service histories given the significant problems with many DANFS records (self-censorship, mistakes, etc). I'd suggest consulting sources like Samuel E. Morrison's official history of the USN in World War II and the recent Osprey books on these ships. Nick-D (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree with that more with regard to individual ship articles where the narrative goes into more depth (since I've had to email the NHHC about errors I've discovered in the past—you may have noticed I've never brought a USN ship article past GA, and it's for this exact reason, as I don't have the sources needed to go beyond DANFS), but in the case of a class article we're just hitting the broad strokes. The bulk of the narrative recounts the battles where these ships saw action, none of which is particularly controversial, and I think DANFS is fine to cover that. As a counter-example, if we were talking about activities of ships in the Caribbean in the 1910s and 1920s, it would be a problem (having gone through the DANFS entries for the battleships of that era, I can tell you that none of them took too critical an eye to what the fleet was doing). Parsecboy (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Nick-D: - is there anything else you'd like me to address? Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm afraid that I'm not convinced by the rationale for not going beyond DANFS here: it's a flawed reference, and sticking to it means that the article is potentially missing discussions of problems with these ships. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't understand that; the technical stuff is all covered by Friedman, Cracknell, and Conway's, not DANFS. DANFS is only being used to cover the where and when of their service histories, and only the broadest of strokes at that. None of the material it's being used to cite is at all controversial, and I don't think the sources you suggested would be any different; I don't know that I've ever seen Morrison to discuss the details of any ship (which is to say, he wouldn't highlight problems with a given ship), and I don't think the Ospreys are all that good (there's a reason I don't use them anymore - even Staff's books on the WWI German ships, which are among the best of the Ospreys, are little more than abbreviated translations of Hildebrand, Röhr, & Steinmetz). You will also note that the one battle in the narrative that goes into a bit of detail—Surigao Strait—is covered primarily by Tully, not DANFS. Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, I can't support here: this isn't A-class sourcing Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your objection doesn’t make sense. First you said the problem with DANFS is it’s tendency to include errors or be censored, but I pointed out that it’s only being used to cover the broad strokes of the ships’ careers, so those problems won’t affect how the source is being used. Then you said DANFS won’t cover defects or criticisms of the ships, but I’m not using it to discuss the technical details of the ships. It seems like you’re moving the goalposts on me. If you categorically object to DANFS, say so, but don’t make up justifications that don’t apply. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • My concern here is that DANFS is almost the only source for the section on the ships' service histories. As various discussions at WT:MILHIST have noted problems with this resource, I don't think that this is satisfactory for an A-class article: there's the risk of errors, omissions and missed opportunities to note interesting things. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • But those details wouldn't be included in this article. That would be a perfectly valid criticism if I brought an article on an individual ship here, but since we are only talking about the broadest of strokes in this article, it isn't. To illustrate the point, let's say the DANFS entry on Tennessee omitted reference to some detail about the ship's actions at a given battle. For the purpose of this article, we don't care. It wouldn't be included here, regardless of whether DANFS mentioned it or not. I could just as easily go through An American Battleship At Peace and War, which at 146 pages, likely includes material that DANFS doesn't, and this article would read exactly the same. All we care about here is whether Tennessee and California were at a given battle, whether they were damaged during the action, etc. We don't care if Seaman Joe Snuffy stubbed his toe during the bombardment at Okinawa.
                  • As for errors, yes, DANFS has errors, but they don't make mistakes on the scale we're talking. Let's look at a passage cited to DANFS, chosen at random: "Tennessee was completed first, returning to the fleet in May 1943 in time to participate in the Aleutian Islands campaign, thus beginning her career as a naval gunfire support vessel during the island-hopping campaign against Japan. In this role, she conducted preparatory bombardments to destroy Japanese defensive positions and provided support to marine and Army ground forces as they fought their way ashore, suppressing Japanese defenders and targeting defensive strongpoints." Are you suggesting that DANFS is wrong that the ship was ready by May 1943? Or that Tennessee wasn't part of the Aleutians campaign? Or that she wasn't used for shore bombardment? Or that the US didn't wage an island-hopping campaign against Japanese forces in the central Pacific? This is the level of detail that DANFS is covering; yes, DANFS makes mistakes on matters of detail at times, but that's completely irrelevant. It'd be like discounting a source that mistakes minor details about the composition of Saturn when all we're talking about is the order of the planets. Parsecboy (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                    • G'day, gents, not sure if it helps, but I have a copy of Morison's Breaking the Bismarcks Barrier on loan from the library. There is only one mention of Tennessee in the index (p. 423) -- it confirms involvement in bombardment of Kavieng. I can add this is you feel it would help. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I've also ordered a couple of extra books from Morison which might help. Probably here late next week. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I have a copy of The Two Ocean War and New Guinea and the Marianas, which have a few mentions (not sure if these are helpful, though, sorry): AustralianRupert (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • TTOW, pp. 59-63: Pearl Harbor, California in the southernmost berth; California mentioned in relation to possible delays in crews laying down anti-aircraft fire; Tennessee mentioned as suffering less damage than West Virginia, hit by two bombs but also experiencing damage from the exploding Arizona; California "unbuttoned" for inspection when hit, hit by two torpedoes and a bomb which set off a magazine. Counterflooding prevents capsizing; 98 officers and enlisted personnel killed
  • TTOW, p. 446: Leyte - both ships equipped with Mark-8 fire control radar
  • TTOW, p. 480: Lingayen - California serving as Oldendorf's flagship & in charge of ops enroute to Lingayen until relieved by Admiral Kinkaid
  • TTOW, p. 482: Lingayen - California hit by a kamikaze at base of foremast
  • TTOW, pp. 534-536: Okinawa - Tennessee with Admiral Deyo onboard supports Okinawa landings
  • TTOW, p. 539: Okinawa - in comparison with Yamato, Tennessee's gun range described as smaller (37,000 yards v 45,000)
  • TTOW, p, 551: Okinawa - 12 April, Tennessee hit by a kamikaze
  • NG&M, pp. 180-182: Saipan - California and Tennessee mentioned in relation to Oldendorf's group during pre-landing bombardment during Saipan ops; twelve 14-inch guns
  • NG&M p. 187: Saipan - Tennessee hit by a Japanese battery on Tinian
  • NG&M pp. 197-198: Saipan - both ships bombarded Afetna; Tennessee supported 1/5 Marines when pinned down by enfilade fire from Agingan Point
  • NG&M pp. 200-201: Saipan - California fires thirty-one 5-inch shells in support of infantry movement near Red 2 Beach during landings
  • NG&M pp. 360-362:Tinian - 23 July, both ships fire 14-inch (480) and 5-inch shells (800) on Tinian Town, destroying it

Hey Nate and Nick, how's the review going on? It looks like that the last comment here made was two weeks ago and the last comment made by one of you is almost two months ago? Just a friendly reminder. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are at an impasse; he believes DANFS is not acceptable at A-class for reasons I do not believe are valid. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Parsecboy: From a first glance, this isn't a topic for a regular review, but for a source review. Personally I do not know a lot of the DANFS and don't know or it is highly reliable or not. But after a small glace in the article, I can see indeed some paragraphs having both primary and secondary sources which are both originally from DANFS. I don't think it's bad to use DANFS as a secondary source as long there is another citation linked to an independent source who supports this claim. AR was so friendly to search for some sources which mention these events with the ships. This may help you. Another thing there's no source review at the moment unless this counted as one. Oh and personal question here why are there citations which have a year and others don't? I hope this would promote (like I always do) 'cause it had waited for a long time before it could promote and the nom looks pretty dead inside. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not opposing here, but I'm afraid that I can't support the nomination. I'd have no objection whatsoever to this nomination passing if someone else posts a support to get this to the minimum needed. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have some comments:

Lead
  • suggest "The Tennessee class consisted of two super-dreadnought battleships"
    • Works for me
  • suggest link ship class in "The class was in most respects"
    • Done
  • suggest "four threetriple turrets"
    • Done
  • marines infantry→United States Marine Corps troops, and link
    • Done
Body
  • suggest "that could reach well into the expected battle ranges of the day"
    • Done
  • suggest " Theis class was essentially"
    • Done
  • 16-inch (406 mm)→16 in (406 mm), as you have already introduced inch
    • Done
  • 14 in (356 mm) guns the Tennessees carried
    • Fixed
  • for turbo-electric drive propulsion system link Turbo-electric transmission, and drop the later link
    • Done
  • high-capacity shell? what is that?
    • Some kind of high-explosive shell, but I don't have any further details from Cracknell or Friedman on its composition. High capacity refers to the fact that much of its internal volume is reserved for whatever explosive they used, compared to standard AP shells that had only a small burster
  • suggest "to prepare that island"→"to conduct the preparatory bombardment of that island"
    • Done

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always. Parsecboy (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments & Support by Pendright[edit]

Back soon! Pendright (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • The class was in most respects a repeat of the preceding New Mexico class, with the primary improvements being a significantly strengthened underwater protection system and increased elevation of the main battery guns to allow them to fire at much greater ranges.
Add a comma after system to join the independent clauses.
Done
  • California was re-floated and both ships were heavily rebuilt between 1942 and 1944.
refloated is not hyphenated.
Are you sure about that? I get the red underline when I type it without one. On the other hand, I searched google books for both versions, and the unhyphenated one seems to be more common, but the hyphenated one is used sometimes (for instance, by Raven & Roberts. I suppose if it appears to be more common to not hyphenate, that's probably what I ought to do here
<> My dictionary sources all agree on the unhyphenated spelling. And this seems to be the generally accepted way it’s spelled. Pendright (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two ships spent the rest of the war patrolling the East China Sea until the Japanese surrender in September.
Consider adding "offical" between the & Japanese, and adding 1945 after September.
Good idea

General charactetistics:

  • The motors were arranged in three rooms, with those for each of the inboard shafts in the center room and one for each outboard shaft on either side.
The begining of the 2nd clause seems a bit awkward.
See if how I reworded it reads easier
<> Much better, thanks! Pendright (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modifications:

  • Both ships received air-search radar and fire-control radars for their main and secondary batteries, the latter seeing the mixed battery of 51-caliber and 25-caliber 5-inch guns replaced by a uniform battery of sixteen 5-inch/38 caliber guns in eight twin mounts.
"fire-control radars" - why the "s" on radar?
There were separate fire-control sets for the primary and secondary guns, since the latter had to engage aerial targets

Service history:

  • During a period of rising tensions with Japan over the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelct ordered the Battle Force to relocate from its homeport in San Pedro, California to Pearl Harbor in Hawaii
Add a comma after California
Good catch, sometimes I forget that if I'm linking a city/state

World Wr II:

  • While she was still working up, Tennessee
This could be a phrase few readers will understand?
Reworded
  • California was ready for service in time for the Mariana and Palau Islands campaign in mid-1944, and both ships shelled Japanese positions on Saipan, Tinian, and Guam; the two ships collided while en route to the last target in the campaign, Peleliu, which prevented California from participating in the Battle of Peleliu, though Tennessee remained in action.
This is a 57 word sentence that could easily be broken-up into two sentences.
Good idea
  • ... before proceeding to Okinawa to conduct the preparatory bombardment of that island
Change that to "this"
Done
  • The two ships were then assigned to Task Force 95 which was charged with patrolling the East China Sea, with Tennessee as the flagship of its commander, Vice Admiral Oldendorf.
If what follows after Task Force 95 is essential to the meaning of the clause, then change which to that. If it is mot, add a comma before which.
Comma added, good catch

Done - Pendright (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pendright! Parsecboy (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting - Pendright (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Neptune's Inferno needs an apostrophe
    • Good catch
  • Be consistent about including publisher's location
    • Fixed
  • Missing a space between the page #s in #25
    • Fixed
  • I have to disagree with Nick about the suitability of DANFS for the limited use to which Parsecboy put it here. I have first editions of two volumes that my Dad purchased 50 years ago and just compared the entries on the battleships North Dakota Oregon with the online versions. The peacock words have been removed, but they're otherwise identical to the printed versions. I forget which battleship listing it was that mentioned the ship's VD numbers after a port call in Australia, but I was vastly surprised such a disreputable thing published by the Navy. So I think that it's safe so say that DANFS can be quirky.
  • DANFS entries are summaries of a ship's service and they are certainly not suited to be the sole resource when diving deep into a ship's history, as is required in an individual ship article. But I think that they're perfectly usable and RS when summarizing a ship's service at the shallow level required for a class article, which doesn't much go below the level of being present at a battle, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • In the lede, link main battery, underwater protection system, refloated, bombardment vessels,
    • Done
  • Add a hyphen in island hopping
    • Done
  • In the infobox, delink the second long tons
    • Good catch
  • Suggest that you convert to the nearest tenth of a meter for length unless that conversion has trailing 0s; here and in the main body
    • Done
  • While stating that the ships use turbo-electric transmission, it makes little sense to say that they have four of them. Rather say that they use 4 turbo-electric generators
    • Removed the "four-shaft" bit
      • That still looks strange. You still need the # of shafts. I'd suggest Turbo-electric transmission on one line and then 4 shafts on the next, plus maybe the generators.
      • In the main body, they weren't powered by turbo-electric transmissions, that's how they fed energy from the boilers to the propellers. The material in the New Mexico and Colorado-class articles might offer some useful ideas. Also need links for turbo-electric transmission and electric generators.
        • Ah, I had missed the box - should be fixed now
        • Reworded the body, see if that works
  • the design staff used the design proximity alert for design.
    • Removed
  • increased draft Proximity alert, perhaps "deepened"? More after my afternoon constitutional.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done - enjoy the heat! I already took mine, between your source review and this ;) Parsecboy (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain the deck levels
    • See if what I added works
  • Tennessee received two of the 3-inch guns back in 1940 awkward
    • Reworded
  • hyphen for aircraft handling
    • Done
  • Need a link to naval gunfire support somewhere, perhaps to bombardment vessels in the lede?
    • Done, though there's one in the WWII section as well
  • Everything else looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2020 (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) 10:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

First Battle of Newtonia[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

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

Toolbox

This will be my first experience with the A-Class system, although I have been active at GA, so I have a decent idea of article standards. This one's a bit more of an obscure topic - a battle on the fringes of the American Civil War. It recently passed a Good Article nomination, and I think it's close to the A-class requirements. Warning - a fair deal of the sourcing is offline, and in somewhat obscure texts. Again, this is my first A-Class experience, so please bear with me. Hog Farm (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Kges1901 Always good to see more coverage of the Civil War.

Gerteis and O'Flaherty's accounts are good for a summary, but because they were covering broad subjects, they could not extensively detail the battle. Ed Bearss has an article about the battle in the Missouri Historical Review that you can access online.

  • In terms of coverage, I'd suggest adding an order of battle between the background and battle sections that details the forces involved in the battle, where you can also state their strengths. That way you can specifically refer to the 9th Kansas Cavalry and the other units in the battle by name.
    • I'll see what I can do. The secondary sources I've consulted so far (Wood, Gerteis, O'Flaherty, Foote, Kennedy, etc.) don't give detailed orders of battle. I've found a Confederate return of casualties in the Official Records, but it only gives regiments by their commanders' names, which wouldn't be particularly helpful if I'm discussing the 31st Texas Cavalry because that's how the secondary sources identify the regiment while the primary source refers to Hawpe's regiment, Alexander's regiment, and Jean's regiment. Additionally, the report I've found doesn't distinguish between infantry and cavalry (and refers to the Confederate battery as Howell's battery, while all of the secondary sources I've seen use Bledsoe's battery) The NPS gives a good Union order of battle, so I'll use that and see what I can turn up on the Confederate side. Hog Farm (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added. How does it look? OR was the best I've found so far.
        • On Bledsoe's Battery, I think you should go with the preponderance of sources. McGhee's unit guide is arguably the best source in the movements of MO CSA units and his statement that Hiram Bledsoe's battery was at Corinth at the time is pretty definitive. As Joseph Bledsoe's battery was regularly attached to Shelby's brigade at the time of Newtonia it seems pretty clear that it is Joseph Bledsoe's battery and that O'Flaherty was in error. Note Howell's battery is a completely different unit (a Texas battery), see Bearss who states that it was a fresh unit sent from Camp Coffee (a reinforcement I presume). If you've noticed, the figures in the ORs are used by Bearss for Confederate casualties.
  • Foote is good, but he didn't use inline refs in his books, though I'm sure that his figures are from the ORs. The Bearss article can shed more light on the strength as well.
  • Wood may have something to add as well, if he didn't rely exclusively on Bearss, you'll have to check to see what sources he used
    • The inside cover of Wood contains a disclaimer stating that the information in the book is true to the best knowledge of the publisher, but that the publisher makes no guarantees as to accuracy. I've never seen that in a book before, so I'm unsure about the reliability of Wood.
      • That looks like publisher boilerplate, probably because they have a heavy emphasis on local history where some books may shade into storytelling. I wouldn't use Wood too much either except for the fact that the CWBA review of the Newtonia book [58] mentions that he used the University of Missouri's manuscript collections, so there might be something new there.
  • There's also Embattled Arkansas: The Prairie Grove Campaign of 1862 by Michael E. Banasik, which apparently covers in the battle in detail as well.
  • For A-class, you'll need to significantly expand the battle section to make it detailed enough. If this were a battle where there wasn't detailed information available, Gerteis & O'Flaherty's accounts would be sufficient, but since Bearss wrote several pages about it there's enough to add several more paragraphs.
    • Heavily expanded battle section using Bearss, I'll skim Wood later and see if there's anything new in that work.

Background

  • the state of Missouri went through a period of decreased military activity - The takeaway from Gerteis seems to be that the Union commanders declared victory, but this quickly proved a tenuous claim with a few months
    • Stated directly
  • the chaotic state of affairs - Schofield was replaced on September 24 per Gerteis, a week before Newtonia, so the date may be relevant as the shift might have had an impact on Union command & control. Also, given that Gerteis notes that Schofield was replaced because Confederate activities gave the lie to Union claims to have full control of Missouri, the exact reasons should be mentioned more than just 'chaotic state of affairs.'
    • I've made this a little clearer
  • When introducing Cooper's raid, the reasons for why they were in Newtonia instead of other places should be explained, as Gerteis mentions that the Confederates were after the grain at the town's mill. Bearss also notes that the town was a key road junction. Kges1901 (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expanded
      • @Kges1901: - How does the clearer background information and the expanded battle section look? Hog Farm (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • The description of the background and expanded battle section is satisfactory except that the details become much more vague in the last paragraph. Bearss has more details about the rout and the intervention of Hall's Missouri militia brigade to discourage the Confederate pursuit. Kges1901 (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kges1901: - It's clear to me now in hindsight that at the time of the nomination, this article was nowhere near the depth required for A-class. Does this article after the expansion stand a reasonable chance of reaching that high standard, or should I withdraw this nomination? Thanks for your helpful comments and work on the article, it's in a much better state than it was a week ago. Hog Farm (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that Bearss probably wrote the most in terms of detail about the battle, you've covered the standard that ACRs comprehensively use the reliable sources about the battle. This article does have a good chance of promotion. Kges1901 (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright[edit]

Thank you for nominating this article. The comments that follow are meant to help make a good article better. Pendright (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • A Confederate force commanded by Colonel Douglas H. Cooper composed mostly of cavalry led by Colonel Joseph O. Shelby and a brigade of Native Americans moved into southwestern Missouri and encamped near the town of Newtonia.
This is a sentence of 36 words without a punctuated pause?
Split into two sentences
<>A Confederate force commanded by Colonel Douglas H. Cooper moved into southwestern Missouri and encamped near the town of Newtonia.
Add a comma after Missouri to join the independent clauses - Pendright (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added
  • Shortly before nightfall, Cooper's Confederates made an all-out attack against the Union line, leading Salomon [to decide] to withdraw from the field.
  • Replace the comma after line with a semcolon to properly join the indepeden clauses.
Done
  • [to decide] - seems unnecessary?
Removed
  • Unionist militia commanded by Colonel George Hall covered the Union retreat, although Confederate artillery fire struck the retreating Union forces.
Need the definite article to begin the sentence and before confederate.
Done
  • A large Union force began advancing towards Newtonia in early October, leading Cooper [to decide] to abandon Missouri.
  • Replace the comma with a semicolon to join the independent clauses.
Done
  • [to decide] seems unnecessary?
Omitted
  • A portion of the battlefield was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2004 as the First Battle of Newtonia Historic District.
  • Do you mean "just" a portion of the balltefield is listed, but the site is identified as the First Battle of Newtonia Historic District?
Yes. Only part of the site is listed, and the listing is referred to by that name
<>Okay, thanks - Pendright (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is listed vs was listed?
I feel like was listed is the correct usage, since the sentence is referring to the action of the listing, which occurred in 2004.
<>Good point - Pendright (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • After Union victories at the Battle of Pea Ridge and the Battle of Island Number Ten in early 1862, Union control of Missouri seemed secure, with the Union high command proclaiming that "[there was] no Rebel flag now flying in Missouri".
Add the definite article before Union control
    • Added
  • Confederate Major General Sterling Price sent some of his troops into Missouri in order to get supplies and new volunteers, and Confederate officers such as Colonel Joseph C. Porter raided into the state.
This sentence is problematic for me! Read it again, and we'll discuss it if need be?
Changed to "Confederate Major General Sterling Price sent some of his troops into Missouri [in order] to get supplies and new volunteers. The state was also raided by Confederate officers such as Colonel Joseph C. Porter.", is this better?
<>Deleting [in order] would make it even better! Pendright (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "in order"
  • Union forces suffered another defeat on August 15, this time at the Battle of Lone Jack.
Add "The" before Union
Added
  • Cooper's force included the Confederate cavalry of Colonel Joseph O. Shelby as well as a brigade of Confederate-sympathizing Native Americans and several Texas cavalry regiments.
Add a comma after Shelby
Added
  • Cooper sent a scouting force commanded by Colonel Trezevant C. Hawpe, composed of the 31st Texas Cavalry (Hawpe's Regiment) and the 1st Cherokee Battalion, to scout the Newtonia area on September 27.
Consider this or something like it - • Cooper sent a scouting force to the Newtonia area on September 27; it was commanded by Colonel Trezevant C. Hawpe, and composed of the 31st Texas Cavalry (Hawpe's Regiment) and the 1st Cherokee Battalion.
Done

Union:

  • The Union force engaged at Newtonia was a mixture of all three arms of the Union army: infantry, cavalry, and artillery.
Union Army is considered a proper noun
Fixed

Confederate:

  • Foote estimated the total Confederate strength to be around 5,500 men,[11] an estimate which is consistent with the range found in other sources.
Change which to that - that is used when what follows is essential to the meaning of the sentence.
Done

September 29:

  • After realizing the his cannons lacked the range to shell Newtonia,
  • "the" or "his"?
It was intended to be "that his"
  • While this link does speak to cannons, it does mot address specifically the various types of cannons actually used during the Civil War. Suggest relinking cannons to Field artillery in the American Civil War.
Done.

September 30:

  • Some of the infantrymen of the 9th Wisconsin moved to the cover [of some] of the houses on the edge of Newtonia and began sniping at the cannoneers of Bledsoe's battery.
  • Delete [of some]
Removed
  • Add a comma after Newtonia
Went with "the edge of Newtonia; they began sniping", I like that a little better stylistically. If that phrasing is objectional, I'll change it
<>It's fine - Pendright (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 22nd Texas had planned on assaulting the Union artillery position, but the Missouri cavalry, commanded by [a] Colonel Gordon, mistook the Texans for Union troops, and the delay caused by the confrontation eliminated the opportunity for an assault.
Why the [a]?
I didn't have the colonel's full name at first, I've hunted it down and removed the a
<>Good - Pendright (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He then proceeded to arrange the cannons on hand, the 6th Kansas Cavalry, the 3rd Indian Home Guard, and a portion of the 9th Wisconsin into a defensive line.
... "into a defensive line" seems more appropriate in the opening clause instead of at the end of the sentence?
Rearranged the whole sentence to "He then proceeded to form a defensive line from the cannons on hand, the 6th Kansas Cavalry, the 3rd Indian Home Guard, and a portion of the 9th Wisconsin."
<>Good enough - Pendright (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the cannon crews that had seen heavy action in Lynde's morning action, along with the 10th Kansas Infantry, formed a reserve.
The word action appears twice in the first clause - you might consider replacing one of them.
Replaced the first one with fighting
  • The 3rd Indian Home Guard pursued the retreating Confederates[,] and threatened the stability of the main Confederate line, but a counterattack by the 1st Choctaw Regiment and the 1st Choctaw and Chickasaw Mounted Rifles stabilized the situation.
Add a [,] comma as above
Done
  • Salomon then order a withdrawal, and the Union troops began to retreat from the field.
... order or ordered?
Should've been past tense
  • Confederate casualties were the highest in Shelby's Regiment, which lost 15 men, including four killed.
...which lost 15 men - does this men injured and kiled?
Are you referring to "Confederate casualties were the highest in Shelby's Regiment, which lost 15 men, including four killed." ? I think it's pretty clear, I also wrote it though. I've inserted the word overall after men, does that help clarify?
<>I’ll rephrase my comment! Of the 15 "lost", four were killed but a reader is left wondering what happened to the other 11 solders. What does "lost" specifically mean in this context? Here, lost is being used as a verb and can mean " having perished or been destroyed". Pendright (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. It was four killed and 11 wounded, I've specified that in the text now.
  • Union losses were highest in the 9th Wisconsin and Lynde's cavalry.
Add the before Union.
Done
  • I suspect related images of this battle are difficult to come by.
In their absence, an image of a Civil War artillery piece would certainly complement this section of the article.
Yeah, I don't believe there's any quality images from the time of the battle in existence. I'll hunt something down.
I went with an image of the flags of one of the regiments that fought at Newtonia, the regiment is mentioned in the text, and the flag has a clear "Newtonia" battle honor, so I thought that was more relevant than a generic cannon
<>Since you did not select a neutral image, I suggest you also add something relative to the Confederate Army – which would reflect a more balanced viewpoint. Pendright (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image of Shelby (Confederate second-in-command) added to the aftermath section, since Shelby is the primary figure in that section
<>Okay - Pendright (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath:

  • However, Shelby's additional stay in Newtonia was short, as he soon received word that his line of retreat was in danger of being cut by the Union advance.
Change cut to cutoff
Went with cut off, as cutoff can have a different indication in some forms of American English
<>You are correct - Pendright (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and [the] Union troops occupied Newtonia after a brief shelling of the town.
Add [the] as above
Done
  • First Newtonia was the first battle in the American Civil War in which Native Americans fought on both sides in an organized manner.
Replace "in which" with "that" - that is used when the informatin is essdential to the meaning of the sentence.
Changed to "First Newtonia was the first battle in the American Civil War that saw Native Americans fight on both sides in an organized manner"
  • In the 1864 battle, a Union army commanded by Blunt attacked and defeated a Confederate army led by Sterling Price as the Confederates retreated southwards after being defeated at the battles of Westport, Missouri and Mine Creek, Kansas.
  • a Union army should be the Union Army
I disagree. In many contexts, Union Army refers to the whole Union war effort, while this was only a subarmy
  • a Confederate army should be the Confederate Army
I disagree. Confederate Army is the overalll Confederate States Army, while this was only a portion of that
<>There is room here for debate, but it would be a useless excercose. Pendright (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a comma after Price
Split sentence, not necessary
<>Resolved with sentence breakup. Pendright (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a comma after Missouri
Done
  • You might also consider breaking up this sentence into two
Split sentence to "In the 1864 battle, a Union army commanded by Blunt attacked and defeated a Confederate army led by Sterling Price. The Confederates had been retreating southwards after being defeated at the battles of Westport, Missouri, and Mine Creek, Kansas."
<>Okay - Pendright (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much as he did in the 1862 battle, Shelby would play a prominent role for the Confederates in the Second Battle of Newtonia.
Replace he with Shelby and Shelby with he
Done, without noting - Pendright (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preservation:

  • 152.3 acres (61.6 ha) of the battlefield are preserved in the First Battle of Newtonia Historic District, which was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2004.
"Avoid beginning a sentence with a number" say some style guides.
Rearranged the sentence
  • While much of the land in the district is privately owned, although the Newtonia Battlefields Protection Association has ownership of 20 acres (8.1 ha) within the district.
  • Is although necessary?
Nope, removed
  • ... within the district seems redundant?
Removed
  • ... preserved 8 acres (0.032 km2)
Why the switch to km from ha?
Oversight, fixed

The article is interesting and, for the most part, well written, but it certainly would have benefitted from a copy edit by the Guild of Copy Editors before its nomination.Pendright (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: - I've replied to all of your points above. Hog Farm (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of my comments have been addressed, and I gladly support this nomination for A-class promotion. Pendright (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

I am not a ACW buff, so defer to Kges1901 and any other editors with more intimate knowledge. A few comments:

  • what type of troops were the a brigade of Native Americans? Infantry, skirmishers, cavalry? Also in the body
    • I have no idea. Bearss just calls them "Indians", O'Flaherty and Wood use "Indian troops", and Gerteis uses "Indian brigade". Not sure.
  • at the top of the Background section, use a main template linking to Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War
    • Done
  • Confederate units of regimental or battalion size that are notable should be linked or redlinked, this may extend down to artillery battery level in the ACW if this source is reliable.
    • Done. The piped link for Howell's Battery is a little awkward, can you think of a better way to accomplish that link?
  • Alexander's 34th Texas Cavalry Regiment, who was Alexander? full name? same with Alexander, Jeans, Shelby, Stevens, Howell, also Jean's regiment was the 12th Missouri Cavalry Regiment, wasn't it?
    • Shelby's is Jo Shelby, who's been named above. It still bore his name even though Gordon was in charge of the regiment
    • Working on the other's full name,s got Jeans and Stevens so far. Alexander also done, and Howell too.
    • Yes, Jean's is the 12th. However, since all of the sources I've seen refer to it as "Jeans' Regiment", I've just footnoted it and I think since the sources all use that nomenclature, I should keep it that way in the text.
  • instead of "Action of September 29" I suggest "Preliminary action" as the lead says the battle occurred on September 30.
    • Done
  • suggest "On September 29, Salomon sent a 150-man scouting force towards Newtonia, commanded by Colonel Edward Lynde from the 9th Kansas Cavalry."
    • Done
  • "The detachment from the 9th Wisconsin would reached the Newtonia area on the morning of September 30."
    • Fixed, use of would is a bad habit of mine
  • which unit were the Union mountain howitzers from?
    • Bearss doesn't say, Lynde's battle report suggests Company "F" of the 9th Kansas Cavalry. Added a footnote
  • "The artillery duelexchange was inconclusive"
    • Done
  • "34th Texas Cavalry (Alexander's Regiment)"
    • Done
  • "Bledsoe's guns would ruan low on ammunition"
    • Done
  • use either 1st Choctaw and Chickasaw Mounted Rifles or First Choctaw and Chickasaw Mounted Rifles
    • Standardized
  • "one of Shelby's Missouri cavalry regiments arrived" which one, Jeans or Shelby?
    • The 5th. Specified
  • "22nd Texas Cavalry (Stevens' Regiment)"
    • Done
  • Jeans' cavalry regiment→the 12th Missouri Cavalry Regiment
    • See my comment above
  • "Captain Sylvanus Howell" as you should have given his name in full in the Opposing forces section
    • Fixed
  • "Howell's Confederate artillery" as you will have established that he was a Confederate, there is a later instance of this
    • Done
  • "Cooper would later sendt an officer"
    • Done
  • Shelby's Regiment→5th Missouri Cavalry Regiment
    • Done
  • 1st Choctaw and Chickasaw Rifles Mounted Rifles
    • Fixed
  • Lynde's cavalry→the 9th Kansas Cavalry
    • Done
  • Salomon's brigade had represented only the advance guard, and link advance guard
    • Went with "Salomon's command", as it appears that some of the units may have technically been from other brigades, but assigned to Salomon
  • what regiments made up "Shelby's cavalry"?
    • Wood, the source for this, doesn't say. I'll look in Bearss later, but he didn't go into as much detail about the retreat.
    • Bearss doesn't mention anything about the retreat, he only covers through the end of the fighting.
    • O'Flaherty, who is focused on Shelby's actions, isn't specific, either.
  • On October 28, 1864, the Second Battle of Newtonia would bewas fought near the site of the 1862 battle.
    • Done
  • Much as Shelby did in the 1862 battle, he would played a prominent role
    • Done
  • author-link Shelby Foote in the References
    • Linked Foote and Bearss

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Peacemaker67: - The website I can access Bearss' article on is currently down, so I'll need to wait on most of the rest of these until it's functioning again. The website has a good history of working properly, so it shouldn't be long. Hog Farm (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peacemaker67: - I've replied to everything. There's one or two points I disagree with, but I'm open to further discussion there. There's also a couple points where the sources just don't answer the questions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, thanks for your efforts so far. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did a little copy editing, please check that I didn't change your intended meaning and that you are happy with the changes. If not, please adjust as you see fit.
    • Thanks, looks good.
  • Shortly before nightfall, Cooper's Confederates made an all-out attack against the Union line; leading Salomon to withdraw from the field --> "Shortly before nightfall, Cooper's Confederates made an all-out attack against the Union line; this led Salomon to withdraw from the field"?
    • Done
  • suggest splitting the lead paragaph as it is quite long (potentially at "Both sides brought up..."
    • Done
  • in the Battle section, suggest splitting the paragraph beginning with "Cooper sent Jeans' Regiment..." (per the above)
    • Split where I though logical, between the statement that Salomon left the field and that Hall arrived.
  • suggest adding a citation next to the quote here (even if it is a named ref): that "[there was] no Rebel flag now flying in Missouri".
    • Done
  • suggest adding the author names for citations 15, 16 and 20 -- also I think these should use short citation style for consistency with the others
    • Converted to short citation style. There's no good author name to use, the work's a compilation of hundreds of official military documents, and with the short citation style, I can't really name all the ones I use
  • there is a mixture in the date format used. For instance compare "9 May 2020" with "September 30, 1862". Either is fine, IMO, but I think it should be consistent either way
    • Done
  • in the Preliminary action section, 9th Kansas and 9th Wisconsin are overlinked
    • Removed. Found a few overlinks of Confederate units, removed them too.
  • suggest left aligning "File:6th Kansas Cavalry flag.jpg" to overset the images throughout the text
    • Done
  • Union artillery batteries contained 12 cannons: do we know the calibre of these guns?
    • Unfortunately, not really. Caliber and type for three, type for another two.
  • After realizing that his cannons: move the link for cannons here to the earlier mention
    • Done
  • suggest moving the casualties paragraph into the Aftermath section
    • Done
  • this seemed a little awkward to me: Shelby's additional stay in Newtonia was short --> could this be worded differently?
  • suggest adding mention of Blunt to the body of the article (currently only in the lead and then in the Aftermath)
    • Added Blunt to the background section.
  • there are no dab links and the external links all work (no action required)

Image review—pass[edit]

  • File:FCSalomon.jpg File:DHCooper.jpg need publication info to show PD status. Also, they are violating MOS:IMAGELOC by breaking across sections. Since neither image is adding much to the article, I would just remove them.
Both removed
  • File:Joseph O. Shelby.jpg Needs publication info. (t · c) buidhe 06:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the image with a different one of Shelby. Since the author of the new image is known (and died in 1879) I think {{PD-US-expired}} works, but maybe I'm wrong. I'm not super strong at licensing. Hog Farm Bacon 03:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: - My computer is broken right now, so I won't be able to address this for awhile. Hog Farm (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that, just ping me when you're able to fix the issue. (t · c) buidhe 19:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: - I've got this done, but there's a bit of a query. Hog Farm Bacon 03:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's good enough for me, passing. (t · c) buidhe 04:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - support[edit]

  • All sources are reliable sources
  • Spot checks:
    • " Historian Shelby Foote would later estimate the total strength of the Union column to be about 4,000 men" - Foote states that the column was 4000 not "about 4000", and doesn't say this was his personal estimate.
Fixed
    • " Foote estimated the total Confederate strength to be around 5,500 men" - again, Foote states that the size of the force was about 5500, and doesn't note this as being his personal estimate. I'd suggest also using his breakdown of the force as 2,500 Missouri cavalry and "about 3000 Indians and guerrillas"
Fixed
    • " First Newtonia was the first battle in the American Civil War that saw Native Americans fight on both sides in an organized manner" - checks out
    • "and was used as a field hospital after the fighting" - ditto
    • "Also known as Gordon's Regiment" - I can't see where this is in the source?
Removed
    • "The Confederate forces at Newtonia included the 1st Cherokee Battalion, the 1st Choctaw Regiment, the 1st Choctaw and Chickasaw Mounted Rifles, Colonel A. M. Alexander's 34th Texas Cavalry Regiment, Lieutenant Colonel Beal G. Jeans' Missouri Cavalry Regiment,[a] Hawpe's 31st Texas Cavalry Regiment, Shelby's 5th Missouri Cavalry Regiment ,[b] Colonel James G. Stevens' 22nd Texas Cavalry Regiment, Bledsoe's Battery, and Captain Sylvanus Howell's Battery" - the reference refers to units other than the Cherokee units as being named after their commander, and not numbered so the source doesn't support these unit names.
I added page numbers from Bearss to support the designations of 31st, 22nd, and 34th. I've dropped "Shelby's" from the 5th, and supported with Bearss. If desired, I can add a reference to McGhee to support that Shelby's = 5th Mo.
    • "The Confederates also lost 15 officers" - "lost" usually refers to people being killed, when this is killed and wounded.
Rephrased. Using lost for total casualties is a bad habit of mine
    • "Three of the cannons were 3-inch rifles and two were mountain howitzers" - checks out.
    • The passage starting with "Union reinforcements brought the number of cannons Lynde had available to five" checks out
    • "The Union losses were highest in the 9th Wisconsin and the 9th Kansas Cavalry" - the source doesn't state that these units suffered the highest casualties, as it notes that Solomon didn't file a report of his casualties. It notes that other reports stated that those two units had particularly high casualties.
Rephrased, is this version more accurate?
  • Overall, this is a higher rate of problems with spot checks than I'm comfortable with. None of the issues here are large, but the cumulative effect of multiple minor inaccuracies is not good. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: My computer is broken, so I won't be able to address this for awhile. The regiment names issue is due to Bearss and the Official Records using different naming conventions, and my previous attempt to work around the issue was deemed awkward by previous commenters. Hog Farm (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: - I've replied to all above. What happens next? I've never done this badly at a source review. If desired, I can create a subpage somewhere with the relevant quotes from O'Flaherty, Wood, Gerteis, Kennedy, and McGhee, so those can be checked. Hog Farm Bacon 04:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: - I've gone through all of the sources and made corrections, there were several more minor slips, like you were worried about. I also had to adjust some page numbers. Hog Farm Bacon 04:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I'm happy to support on sourcing here. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2020 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

American logistics in the Normandy campaign[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

American logistics in the Normandy campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is a companion to my article on British logistics in the Normandy campaign, which was written back in 2017. The US effort is far more controversial. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
  • File:Red Ball 1944 september 20-fr.svg needs sources for information presented (I am not sure about RS and the second link is dead).
    The image is part of a series created by Wikipedians. The source is Ruppenthal, Logistic Support of the Armies, Volume II, Map 5, p. 136 [59], along with the accompanying text, which notes the changes to the Red Ball route over time. I have added an archive link [60] to the other map (which comes from here). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Red_Ball_Express_Regulating_Point.jpg Can you confirm that this is a US military image? Source link is bare image, so it doesn't say so.
    The image is from Ulysses Lee's seminal work, The Employment of Negro Troops, p. 632 [61], which is also part of the Green books series. The book notes that the image was taken from the US Army files. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other images look OK to me in terms of copyright, relevance and other criteria. buidhe 20:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments

Some of the sections are very long. It would be helpful for readability to break up or subdivide some of the longer ones, such as Bolero, Shipping, Mulberry harbor, Base organization, POL, Railways, Motor transport, Ports. These are all well over a page on my computer with small font and are likely to occupy several screens for readers who use larger text or smaller screens. buidhe 07:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying no, but am uncertain as to how this will improve readability. MOS:BODY says Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose but gives no guidance. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout#"Very_long"_sections. buidhe 06:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

Great topic! I have the following comments:

  • " This left the Third US Army with only 60 percent of its wheeled vehicles" - when was this as of?
    By the end of June. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can more be said about the supply of the two airborne divisions in the 'Assault' section? - this appears rather late in the article, and could be usefully moved forward.
    Moved forward to the buildup section, and added a bit more about the resupply of the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Discharge at night under lights began on 12 June despite the obvious risk of German air attack. " - this might over-state the risk given Allied air superiority over Normandy: a key reason for the success of the Allied landings at Normandy is that the Germans could only occasionally harass their rear areas while the Allies greatly disrupted the German supply lines. The Australian night fighter squadron which operated over Normandy in June found few targets, for instance.
    Very true. Only one ship was lost to air attack (HMS Boadicea). Deleted "obvious". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only 25 days of good weather could be expected in June" - this seems pretty good actually.
    Good point. Deleted "only". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as was interference by the Luftwaffe once it was beyond the range of fighter cover." - given that the Allies were always able to move fighter aircraft to cover the advances of ground forces from 1942 onwards, and were able to maintain substantial air units in France from early in the Normandy campaign, this seems questionable.
    The the advances of ground forces from 1942 onwards was predicated on the availability of air cover. There was no attempt to operate beyond it. But here, we are talking about deliberately doing that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Hawkeye, nice work, as always. I had a look at this earlier in the year and believe it meets the A-class criteria. I have a few minor suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see some examples of British English (probably from templates -- metres for instance, but also "despatched", "minimise", "reconnaissance", )
    checkY Fiddled with the templates. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and by May 1944 fifteen US port battalions were working the UK ports --> missing full stop
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • but it died hard in the UK -- this seems a bit like editorialising
    checkY Sounds like something Bruce Willis would do. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • everyone from Eisenhower down felt short changed -- this seems a bit like editorialising
    I'm not sure how to express this differently. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, not a major concern. I'd suggest maybe: "and when confronted with evidence to the contrary, there was widespread disappointment". Would that work? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Sure. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and a shortage of it proved impossible to reserve the routes: I wasn't really sure about the wording here
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • with mines that the German had apparently --> "with mines that the Germans had apparently" or "with mines that the German troops had apparently"
    checkY Deleted "that". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A great victory had been won...: I'd suggest attributing this contention in text
    Changed to "the Battle of Normandy". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • rapidly changing operational situation. [175] --> remove space between citation and punctuation
    checkY Found a few instances and removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the References: "Center Of Military History" --> "Center of Military History"?
    checkY De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Little, Brown and Cimoany" --> " Little, Brown and Company"?
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OCLCs for the Balmer, Blumenson, Crist, Mayo works?
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest adding an endash to the title of the source by C.J. Dick
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISSN or similar for the Infantry Journal?
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Washington, D.C. v. Washington, DC (compare Hogan with Ruppenthal)
    checkY Settled on DC per MOS:POSTABBR Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Omaha Mulberry Harbour.jpg": the image description page appears to be missing some information; also, the source link doesn't point to the image, suggest adjusting the link or provide a catalogue number to allow searching
    checkY Corrected on Commons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice work. Thanks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Another nice piece on WWII logistics, Hawkeye. Some comments from me:

Lead
  • link Communications Zone
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "but the American Mulberry at Omaha"
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link mortar (weapon)
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • probably no need for (BARs) in the lead as not used again in the lead, just use in the body?
    It's another of those abbreviations that is better known than what it stands for. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Brittany
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Body
  • comma after "General George C. Marshall"
    checkY added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Harry L. Hopkins, the principal foreign policy advisor to the president"
    checkY Uh okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • suggest "Major General John C. H. Lee, who had previously commanded the Pacific Ports of Embarkation in the US."
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Northern Island Base Section→Northern Ireland Base Section
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link measurement ton
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Division (military)
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • move NATOUSA in full from second to first mention
    checkY Damn. Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marking three round-trip voyages
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • troops arrivals
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the first five months of 1944
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • say that the Third Army was the US follow-up force
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • say that 21st Army Group was the principal landing force for D-Day and that First United States Army Group was a deception formation
    checkY Looks like I didn't introduce the operational formations very well. Added a paragraph about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • introduce FUSAG when first mentioning First United States Army Group
    checkY Introduced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Communications Zone
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advance Section (ADSEC) is odd, normally we would link the term, not the acronym
    It's what the article is called. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but the target article is completely uncited, as of course is the claim it is commonly referred to as ADSEC. The article title is deficient in a number of ways. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Well, the two of know it is in fact correct. Changed to link "Advance Section" to "ADSEC". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose I could add it to my work list. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Brittany

Down to Assault, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • for glider-borne link Military glider
  • checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • insert links into "quartermaster, ordnance, medical, military police, signals and chemical warfare"
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link James Edward Wharton
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11th Port what? regiment? brigade?could you reword
    It's the name of the unit; the 11th Port. [62] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Armored bulldozer and suggest bulldozer rather than colloquial "dozer"
    These are not the same thing. An armoured bulldozer is a bulldozer with armoured protection. A tank dozer is a tank with a bulldozer blade on the front.
Armoured bulldozer Tank dozer
  • Yes, I am aware, but "dozer" is still colloquial, suggest "tank bulldozers" you could also link to M4 Sherman variants#US Special Attachment variants as these sixteen were Shermans in any case. They were joined later in the day by actual armoured bulldozers anyway. See [63] Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You realise that your source calls them "tankdozers" and the link calls them "dozers"? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • could you reword "The demonstration of the Army's prodigality inculcated a culture of wastefulness that had undesirable longer term consequences."? Seems unnecessarily wordy.
    checkY dropped "long term". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean "profligacy" rather than "prodigality"? the former being more severe and the latter being a rather obscure usage. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "prodigality" is better, because it also has the connotation of "lavish" whereas "proflifate" means wasteful and dissolute. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Build-up. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • pontons→ pontoons, this is an archaic spelling less recognisable than pontoon, there are more examples
    ponton is the official US military spelling. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • personally returned to the UK
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest being consistent with use of FUSA for First Army after it is introduced
    checkY Switch to consistently use "First Army". It seems that the abbreviation fell out of use when Third Army was activated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On its first day of operation, a vehicle unloaded over the pier every 1.16 minutes." do you mean loaded?
    checkY Changed to "was unloaded". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link blockship
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Allied Expeditionary Air Force
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some supplies and equipment such as 105 mm howitzers
    checkY Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • link field hospital
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ccross-Channel
    checkY De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • eliminate the man withmen carrying the Browning automatic rifle (BAR)
    checkY Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • emergency action. the First Army
    checkY Capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • when first mentioning the M1 mortar, say it was 81 mm, as you later refer to 81 mm ammunition
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link New York Port of Embarkation
    Already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • can you briefly explain what the Minor System pipeline was?
    Added a bit. It's in the map too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link avgas
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Breakout and pursuit. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • explain that Operation Cobra was the breakout from Normandy when first introduced
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some reason, Bradley fixated on Brest? Did he explain his decisions or thinking in A Soldier's Story?
    checkY He simply says that he gave Brest had priority over Lorient. Deleted "for some reason". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • VIII Corps commander Lieutenant General Troy H. Middleton
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the commander iof the 4th Major Port
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ten days later it was redesignated thatas Cherbourg Command
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Base Collins's Section No. 1→Collins' No. 2 Base Section
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • move the link to Laval, Mayenne to first mention
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • what were the implications of "although ADSEC had opened a MT80 supply point at Fontainebleau"?
    checkY Deleted this since POL is discussed in the next section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is the import of (282,000 US gallons (1,070,000 l) on 24 August alone) when that is less than the First Army daily rate of 501,000 US gallons?
    checkY I think I was trying to correct the misconception that Third Army was the bigger user of POL. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • were there any gauge issues with using the French railways?
    No, the French system was a standard-gauge railway. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Pontaubault
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • found using a series of secondary lines?
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18:00 on 15 August and 20:00 and 19:00, per MOS:TIME
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • was in Allied hands, and reconstruction of that line was given a high priority, and it
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Dreux
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Motor transport. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done, but I'm left wondering if there is a heavy reliance on older sources, esp Ruppenthal. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruppenthal is awesome! It's a shame that the corresponding volume on the Pacific theatre never got written. I have an extensive library of books on logistics here and I can tell you that it is not a popular subject. I'm still anxiously awaiting the release of the volume on logistics in the Vietnam series. The last book-length treatment of the US forces in Normandy was Waddell. That was 25 years ago but somehow the distance between 1995 and 2020 doesn't seem as great as that between 1945 and 1970. I was very impressed with Dick's chapter on logistics - enough to buy a copy of the book, but he gives an overview. I will have a look at some theses. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt. Not an issue at ACR, but I think you'll need to be able to show that you've looked at a wider range of sources (and some more recent ones) at FAC. I still think ponton and prodigality are pretty obscure (and we should be writing in plain English for readers), but that is a minor matter. Support for this excellent effort. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the recent works which have re-evaluated popular views of the US Army in World War II (like this one) might have useful material on this topic - there have been a few works in recent years arguing that the US Army was more effective than previously commonly believed due to its 'enablers' and good leadership. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass[edit]

In progress... Harrias talk 08:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting and consistency

  • "Balmer, J. D.; Compton, L. J.; Daley, J. P.; Williams, U. P. (1945)" needs some publisher details.
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beck, Alfred M.; Bortz, Abe; Lynch, Charles W.; Mayo, Lida; Weld, Ralph F. (1985)" has a typo: "United States Amy"
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for the next, "Blumenson, Martin (1961)". Also, why does this list the publisher as "Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army", rather than "Center of Military History" like the previous instance? Looking at the sources themselves, they both use "Center of Military History"? Check this for all the "United States Army in World War II" sources.
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bykofsky, Joseph; Larson, Harold (1957)" doesn't list a URL, but I assume it is this?
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hogan, David W., Jr. (2000)" similar question; lists "Center of Military History" in the source material? Am I missing something here?
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Melia, Tamara Moser (1991)" needs an endash in the year range for the title.
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you note that the "Osmanski, F. A." sources are all PDFs.
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, you use "City, State" for the location. I'm happy with Toronto and Boston being exceptions to this, but in "Rawson, Andrew (2012)", I would expect some more information for "Stroud".
    checkY Added "Gloucestershire" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thomson, Harry C.; Mayo, Lida (1960)." doesn't list a URL, but I assume it is this?
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typo in the location for "Waddell, Steve R. (1994)": "Wesport, Connecticut".
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality and coverage

  • All sources appear to be high-quality reliable sources.
  • As Peacemaker67 notes, looking towards a future FAC, it would be worth sampling some more modern sources; I don't know if this provides much?
    It's mostly about the British. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checking

  • Spotchecks reveal no evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing, and in each instance the article accurately represented the source material. Harrias talk 08:50, 9 July 2020 (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) 00:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Landis' Missouri Battery[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Landis' Missouri Battery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

After a good GA review by User:Harrias, a moderate expansion, and a page move, I believe this one is ready. An artillery battery of the American Civil War, it's history was cut short halfway through the war by a consolidation with two other batteries. It's a bit of a short article, but there's not much to say about this topic. I think it's close to the A-Class requirements, I hope I'm not proved wrong. Hog Farm (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
  • All images are free. buidhe 02:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review—pass
  • I think most of the sources are OK, but I'm not sure about White Mane publishing from what I read here: [64][65] According to a review of one of their books, "They don’t edit, they don’t proofread, and there is almost no quality control." and even publish plagiarism. buidhe 02:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not familiar with White Mane in particular. Tucker's a decent author for stuff about the Trans-Mississippi Theater of this war, and the copy I have has a forward by Albert E. Castel, who's a respected author, praising the book's scholarship. I'm not familiar enough with White Mane to tell if this is a widespread issue or if they just pissed Eric J. Wittenberg, the author of that blog post, off sometime. Witteberg also rants in his post about the Stephen W. Sears, who is reasonably well respected, at least from what I've heard. I just don't know. Tucker's work was reviewed by the Journal of Military History, but unfortunately I can only access the first few lines. [66]. @Buidhe: - Since White Mane seems to focus the most on the ACW, is it okay if I ping a couple of active ACW editors to see what there opinion of the publisher is? I just don't know on this one. I can probably replace most of it with "In Deadly Earnest: The History of the First Missouri Brigade, CSA" by Gottschalk. That's one's published by a very obscure author, but it won the Douglass Southall Freeman Award, which is one of the bigger awards for ACW scholarship. Hog Farm (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can read the review, which is mixed but more favorable on Gottschalk's book. I would be willing to accept the Tucker book based on the review, but it is usually best to cite multiple sources if possible. Please feel free to ping anyone who might have input. buidhe 02:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Eddie891, Kges1901, and GELongstreet: - Sorry to bother, but all three of y'all have edited recently and expressed an interest in the ACW. I wondering if any of y'all have any knowledge about the reliability of White Mane as a publisher or Philip Thomas Tucker as an author, both specialize in the ACW. Thanks. Hog Farm (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • - I've supported/replaced Tucker wherever I can. Tucker and McGhee are probably the most detailed on Landis's Battery, and both come from different angles, so there's some details in Tucker not in the others. I'm down to just 2.5 paragraphs citing Tucker alone, and anyway, he seems to be decent enough. Is the sourcing more acceptable now? Hog Farm (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Tucker seems reliable for these details on the battery. Naturally having Gottschalk as well can't hurt. Kges1901 (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Looking at more reviews The North Carolina Historical Review concludes that "The South's Finest is an informative and highly readable history of an exceptional brigade" (though it does criticize Tuckers high degree of praise as creating a "polemical tone reminiscent of postwar volumes written by veterans to promote the reputation of their units"), Civil War History has a review with In Deadly Earnest and writes that "Both the volumes under review [...] do a good job in assessing the turbulent political and social conditions in 1861 Missouri that split the state and led to the creation of the Confederate Missouri brigade. Both books are generally well written and thoroughly researched in primary and secondary sources. Thomas does demonstrate more familiarity with recent scholarship". Thomas here is presumably Philip Thomas Tucker. It goes on to say "The major problem with Thomas's book is his overuse of superlatives. No battle unit could possibly be as perfect as the author pictures the Missourians, both the rank and file and the officers" and concludes "though both these unit histories benefit the historiography of the war in the West, neither quite measures up to the accomplishments of their subject." In The Journal of Southern History there's a rather winding review that thinks "the title of this work unfortunately does not convey the full significance of its scholarship" and mentions that "the value of this work lies in its exploration of the consistencies and disjunctures of the concept of 'elite' in the military context..." Sorry for the extensive quotations, and hopefully I commented on the right book . I'd summarize the general consensus of what I read as the book well researched and seemingly reliable, just be careful to account for his heavy promotion of the battery. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. Unfortunately, I have to go away with work tomorrow for a little bit, so am about to log off and go to bed. As such, I only took a quick look and did a little copy editing (please check you are happy with my changes and adjust as you see fit). I have a couple of minor suggestions at this stage: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • men to bring the regiment --> battery?
Oops. Fixed.
  • in the 1863 section, there is a jump in the narrative between January and May -- do we know what the battery did in the intervening period?
Gottschalk does not say. McGhee does not say. Tucker quotes a passage from a soldier's diary about boredom while stationed at Grand Gulf, but doesn't state an exact time frame. I can't find any evidence directly stating what it did- probably at Grand Gulf in reserve, but haven't found anything that states that directly
  • was the battery combined into a regiment with that of Guibor and Wade? Or were Landis' men simply transferred to the other batteries as reinforcements?
clarified
@AustralianRupert: I've got a nonfunctional computer at the moment, so I'll only be able to make minor prose edits. Hog Farm (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: I've replied to the three starter comments. I'm hoping to push this one to FAC once it gets past ACR, so anything you can find, no matter how nitpicky, is welcome. Hog Farm Bacon 02:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Done
  • I'd like to see more info in the lead about the unit. Now it looks just a quick recap, especially about the battles.
I've rewritten the lead. Is the new version better?
  • Looks better, could you also split the paragraph; it now looks like one paragraph is almost equally to a half of a section in the body which is a little bit too much especially this isn't that long.
Split at the 1862/1863 boundary
  • Landis' Missouri Battery, also known as Landis' Company, Missouri Light Artillery --> "The Landis' Missouri Battery, also known as the Landis' Company, Missouri Light Artillery"
The sources never use "the" before the battery's name
  • Done. It feels awkward to me, but I'll do it per boldlead
  • Yeah sometimes it does feel awkward and there's always been a debate whether we should follow the guidelines or the sources and sometimes both have a good argument. Cheers.
  • the unit traveled to Des Arc, Arkansas in January 1862 to be equipped with cannons This sentence says it was formed in January 1862 while the infobox says early 1862?
  • This comment of mine isn't addressed?
  • Done. Went with January per McGhee
  • Brigadier General Henry Little's division Shouldn't it be "Lewis Little's"?
Fixed
  • Could you please tell my why is the article's name being "Landis' Missouri Battery" while the body nor infobox use "Landis's Missouri Battery" with an extra s?
Corrected. Originally at the title of Landis's

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, are you feeling able to pass judgement on this one yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: Not yet – there are some little issues and one comment isn't even addressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Not much to nitpick about here in what is a brief article. A few comments:

Lead
  • suggest "during the early years of the American Civil War"
Done
  • suggest "The battery saw action at the Battle of Iuka, Second Battle of Corinth, the Battles of Port Gibson, Champion Hill and Big Black River Bridge, and the Siege of Vicksburg, as well as several smaller battles." with piped links, to avoid the repetition of "Battle of"
Lead rewritten
  • The regimentbattery was captured when the Confederate garrison of Vicksburg surrendered on July 4, 1863.
Done
  • suggest "instead, its men and guns were absorbed, along with those of another depleted battery, by Guibor's Missouri Battery." as that seems to reflect what the sources say?
Done
Body
  • what was the name of the command of Brigadier General Daniel M. Frost? Xth Brigade etc?
Done. An artillery brigade
  • space in "batteries.Artillery fire"
Fixed
  • Landis' Battery lost 10 men at Corinth - killed or total casualties?
Clarified
  • suggest "Landis' Battery was again part of the rear guard.
Done
  • When the attack was forced backwards
Done
  • At Champion Hill, Landis' Battery lost nine men - killed or total casualties?
Clarified
  • A portion of the battery was assigned to the Confederate front line. The remaining portion consisting of the two howitzers?
  • "that portion of the battery lost its cannons" and "The battery's remaining two cannons" doesn't add up, the Napoleon's were knocked out the previous day, so they only had two howitzers, and if it "lost its cannons" what did it have left?
@Peacemaker67: I have no idea how to address this. McGhee states that "the remaining cannons" were at BBRB, but Tucker directly states that the battery had multiple pieces on each side of the river. Gottschalk and the NPS are silent on the issue. Once I get my computer back I can check the Official Records and see if that sheds any light. Hog Farm Bacon 02:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "where it suffered between 10 and 13 casualties" and cite the NPS as well as McGhee
Done
  • suggest "During the siege, Lieutenant John M. Langan also commanded the battery"
Done
  • "On October 1, the members of the battery were consolidated with Guibor's Battery and Wade's Missouri Battery; Landis' Battery ceased to exist as an independent unit. The combined unit carried on the history of Guibor's Battery." it seems to me better to describe this as Guibor's Battery absorbing the other two batteries, as they ceased to exist and the battery continued to carry Guibor's name
Done

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: My computer's in the shop yet, at least for several more days. I'll work on what I can address with my mobile editing system's reduced capabilities, but some of it I can't work on for awhile. Hog Farm Bacon 14:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No rush mate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, supporting. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • Should there not be something on the size of the battery, in terms of both men and guns, in the lead?
Added
  • In the lead, why are we told the name of the battery's commander during the Siege of Vicksburg, but not at any other time?
Added
  • "in an artillery duel with the 8th Michigan Light Artillery. The battery suffered three casualties at Port Gibson". Optional: 'in an artillery duel with the 8th Michigan Light Artillery; the battery suffered three casualties.
Done
  • "Landis ordered the men to fire a shell behind a retreating Confederate". Behind, to me, means more towards the enemy. Perhaps 'in the path of a retreating Confederate'? Assuming that that is in fact what you mean.
Done
  • You state that Landis raised the battery. I assume that he then commanded it up to Vicksburg, but this is not stated.
I'm being picky on this, but I would feel happier if the article explicitly stated somewhere that Landis commanded it from its formation to Vicksburg. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for an exact date. The image of the NPS marker states May 13 for the change in command, but the print sources don't state beyond Tucker implying that it was before Champion Hill. I think Coleman might have said something, but it won't load on my phone (my computer's been not working for a week, and I have four GA nom reviews and a bunch of ACR comments I have to put on hold as a result). Personally, I don't trust the marker's date without secondary confirmation, as old markers are often inaccurate. So I guess this is something else to put on hold until I get my computer back (fingers crossed this week) and I can check Coleman and some primary sources. This and PM's concern about contradictory sources above are gonna take some heavy research. Hog Farm Bacon 02:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with something like 'Landis commanded the battery until some point during the Vicksburg Campaign', but I am supporting anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • "were paroled, exchanged" I am a little confused. If they were exchanged, why did they need to be paroled? If they were paroled for the duration, how come the battery was amalgamated?
Under the parole terms of the ACW, they were not held in a POW camp but couldn't fight until officially exchanged. Too many surrendered at Vicksburg to keep in a camp given that the Union only held a thin strip. Do I need to add a note explaining this?
I think that the three separate activities just need specifying a little more. Something like 'The 37 men left in the battery were released on parole until they were exchanged; they were then ordered to Demopolis, Alabama.' perhaps?
Went with also ordered to Demopolis instead of then, as the parole holding actually occurred at Demopolis. Hog Farm Bacon 22:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice indeed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2020 (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) 11:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Boomerang[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

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

Toolbox

Operation Boomerang was a partially successful raid conducted by USAAF B-29 Superfortress heavy bombers on oil facilities in the Dutch East Indies in August 1944. It was the result of debates during the planning process for Operation Matterhorn, the extraordinary strategic bombing campaign waged against Japan by aircraft based in India, and formed part of a series of heavy bomber attacks on Japanese-occupied cities in South East Asia. Despite a heavy investment of resources, including an airbase custom-built for the operation, the primary target of the bombers was barely damaged. The use of naval mines proved more successful, and marked the start of what proved to be a highly successful USAAF tactic.

I developed this article to GA class in 2018, and have recently been able to expand it with a new source. The literature on this topic is somewhat thin at times (no details on what the Japanese aircraft involved were, for instance), but I think that the current state of the article is comprehensive and hopefully of A-class status. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, Nick, nice work -- I have a few minor suggestions/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • mines to block a river --> "lay mines"?
  • work began on modifying four --> "work began to modify four"?
  • The Command sought to have --> "The command..."
  • "favourable" --> " favorable"
  • XX Bomber Command staff would have liked to have cancelled the mission --> "XX Bomber Command staff wanted to cancel the mission"?
  • Each of the Air Defense Regiments was --> "Each air defense regiment was..."?
  • slightly inconsistent "101st Machine Cannon Battalion" v. "101st Machine Gun Cannon"
  • the accuracy of this attack was considered "excellent": suggest stating who considered it excellent
  • able to send a SOS signal --> "able to send an SOS signal"
  • indicated that only a single building --> "single small building" (from the lead)
  • B-29s were subsequently frequently used --> "Subsequently, B-29s were frequently used"
  • Eastern Fleet is overlinked in the Aftermath section
  • Ext links all work, there are no dab links (no action required)
  • images all have alt text and appear to be correctly licenced to me (no action required)
  • in the Works consulted section, suggest adding endashes to the titles for Fuller, Mann and Rohwer
  • in the Works consulted section, is there an OCLC for the Japanese monograph?
    • There doesn't seem to be. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries, thanks for checking. I've added my support above, but have one minor follow up query (please see below). AustralianRupert (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • one last thing, 56 B-29s from the 444th and 468th Bombardment Groups arrived at RAF China Bay --> I'm not sure if it has been clarified where they originally flew from? (I may have missed this, though). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • From their main bases in Bengal - added Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review—pass
  • All images are free. buidhe 01:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review—pass
  • The other sources look OK, but what makes combinedfleet.com a RS? buidhe 01:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its publishers and writers include well regarded historians, and the website is frequently referenced in history books: [67]. Thanks for these checks. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure about that. When I checked your Google books results, the first two appeared to be self-published and the third a "dramaticised" account. The author [68] might just squeak by on WP:SPS, so I'm going to pass the review, but strongly recommend supplementing with a more reliable source or removing. buidhe 07:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • An article from the site is in this book published by the Naval Institute Press, which is a top-tier publisher of military history works so I think it's fine. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No source checks done. buidhe 07:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • Japanese-occupied cities in South East Asia Little bit misleading to use South East Asia while the infobox uses Dutch East Indies?
    • I've added a bit to the aftermath section explaining this. Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • dispatched from an airfield in Ceylon on 10 August Ceylon is a MOS:EGG I recommend to link it to British Ceylon.
  • In what kinda English style is this written? I saw the words "center", "percent", "travelling", "favourable", "cancelled" and "antiaircraft"?
    • US English - this should be fixed now Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • first combat mission against Bangkok on 5 June 1944 Don't think we should link Bangkok here. The CNN, not that long ago published an article which states that Bangkok the second most visited city in the world is not that far from Hong Kong and has far more than London has.
  • These raids were to be staged through airfields in Ceylon Same as above with Ceylon.
  • USAAF and Royal Air Force personnel Add here British.
  • with only a ton of bombs Does "ton" here mean "a lot" or as in a unit? If it is a unit which one then and add a convert.
  • 101st, 102nd and 103rd Air Defense Regiments and the 101st Machine Cannon Battalion No links?
  • was equipped with 20 Type 88 75 mm AA guns Is it possible to avoid two separate numbers next to each other?
    • Not sure how given that Type 88 75 mm AA gun is the name of the guns - Japanese WW2-era designations are pretty clunky to English-speaking eyes. Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The strike force began to take off from China Bay at 4:45 PM on 10 August I don't which English you use but Ngram uses p.m. more than capitalised. [69].
    • I should probably get MOS:TIME tattooed onto one of my arms, as I always mess this up. Fixed. Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • from China Bay to Siberoet island Isn't island part of the proper noun here?
  • were able to send a SOS signal Typo article?
  • undertaken on the night of 10 August Night of 9/10 or 10/11?
  • attacked by the Royal Navy in January 1945 in one of the images; maybe add British here.

That's anything from me. Nice job. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @CPA-5: Thanks for these comments, and sorry for my slow response. I think that the comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nick-D: Hallo Nick, you just missed a "travelling" but I've fixed it for you. BTW, I see a lot of anti-aircraft and antiaircraft; Ngram tells us that "antiaircraft" more common is in American English. If you've fixed this small issue, I can give you a support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem, here's my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • "and lay mines to block a river". Picky and optional: is there a more precise word than "block"? 'Interdict'; 'blockade'?
    • That's a good point - "Interdict" seems the best choice here. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erm. And that petty point is all I could find. An impressive article. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2020 (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 Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Benjamin Lewis Hodge[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

Benjamin Lewis Hodge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Benjamin Lewis Hodge was a lawyer and politician in Shreveport in north Louisiana who became a colonel in the Confederate Army, leading a regiment at the Battle of Shiloh. After leaving military service due to ill health, Hodge resumed his political career and became a Confederate congressman. However, he only briefly fulfilled his ambitions, serving in Congress for a few weeks and dying soon afterwards. This article was improved from a stub and passed a GA this week. Kges1901 (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Hog Farm

Lead

  • Consider linking colonel in the lead, military ranks may not be obvious to those not familiar with the military systems.
  • Done

Secession and Civil War

  • "After the election of Lincoln, Hodge became a proponent of immediate disunion" - For readers without a background knowledge of American history, this isn't going to make much sense. Maybe something along the lines of "After Abraham Lincoln was elected president, Hodge became a proponent of immediate disunion"
  • Done
  • Link DeSoto Parish at the first mention, not the second.
  • Done, good catch
  • Consider linking Lieutenant Colonel
  • Done
  • Link Major General at the first usage, not the second.
  • Done

References

  • Ref 23 doesn't directly connect the person as being Hodge's son, multiple people of that name could have existed in Louisiana at that time.
  • The names of the sons are also mentioned in the 1860 census.
  • Family Search is a service that provides scans of original documents, so the slave schedules are really what is being cited. Added subscription parameter
Hi Hog Farm, does this constitute an ACR source review? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can, unless I did a bad job. Hog Farm (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • Best to have someone who's an expert in copyright look at File:Benjamin Lewis Hodge hand sketch.png. I'm not sure if fair use is required or not, I'm also not an expert at image licensing though, so I defer to the opinions of others.
  • I don't believe the image can be PD because it does not appear to have been published before 1976.

That's what I can see. Hog Farm (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in good shape. A few comments:

  • I would beef up the detail and notability in the first sentence, suggest "Benjamin Lewis Hodge (c. 1824 – August 12, 1864) was a Confederate politician who commanded the 19th Louisiana Infantry Regiment during the early stages of the American Civil War, including during the Battle of Shiloh.", then thin out the redundant bits of the second para
  • for election in "unopposed election", link Confederate Congressional elections, 1863, and same link in the body
  • suggest "in 1864 before his death."→"before his death in 1864."
  • suggest using the {{circa}} template in the first sentence and in the body
  • any info available about which party and seat he represented in the state legislature and what years?
  • Information is sparse, but I was able to find proof of an 1857-1859 term.
  • suggest "by those advocating immediate secession"
  • link Confederate States Army
  • free colored→ free colored man
  • link Major General to General officers in the Confederate States Army#Major general
  • "being vindicated"→"but was vindicated"
  • "Hodges attempted to rejoin Gibson's brigade"
  • "command of the regiment"→"command of the 19th Louisiana Infantry"
  • full stop after "Washington Artillery", start new sentence, "His ad hoc formation was positioned on the right of the army..."
  • for protectionism link Protectionism in the United States#Civil War
  • for special election link by-election
  • no idea what ailed him?
  • Someone may have known then, but if he did, it hasn't survived. A contemporary newspaper mentions the time he died at, but not the cause of death.

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on this, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

  • "He won election as a Know Nothing representative from Caddo Parish in 1857" - what was he elected to? (the state legislature or the local government?)
  • Clarified
  • "Despite Hodge's connections, he was not an extreme proslavery advocate " - given that this scumbag owned four slaves, invested in other slavery-related businesses and was a notable proponent of succession, this doesn't seem an accurate summation.
  • Four slaves was unexceptional for the context of north Louisiana and the source specifically describes him as not being an "extreme proslavery advocate" in the antebellum period. The Constitutional Union Party favored an impossible compromise but were less pro-secession in 1860 then the Southern Democrats, which aligns with available information on Hodge's politics, as he was a member of the Whigs and then the Know Nothings.
  • This wording minimises this jerk's awfulness by defining him as what he wasn't rather than the horror of what he was: a slave owner and a prominent advocate of succession in the cause of continuing slavery. The Know Nothings were also a collection of cranks. I'd suggest flipping this around, and describing his views. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added details about his political activities in 1860. Kges1901 (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks good, and adds a lot of useful detail. Nick-D (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence starting with "Hodge advanced his men" is a bit overly lengthy and complex.
  • Rephrased
  • A bit more context on the battle of Shiloh would be helpful - for instance, what was "Davis' wheat field" and where was the regiment located in relation to the front line (in the centre, one of the flanks, etc)?
  • The sentence starting with "Attending less than a full session of the Second Confederate Congress" is also overly complex Nick-D (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrased

Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2020 (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 Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Dęblin–Irena Ghetto[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Buidhe (talk)

Dęblin–Irena Ghetto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I think this article meets the A-class criteria and I'm hoping to get some feedback in order to polish it for a future FAC. Dęblin–Irena was an anomaly in the history of the Holocaust in Poland. While 99% of the Jews in surrounding areas were murdered, in Dęblin–Irena the chance of surviving was as high as ten percent. The article explains why. (In short: some were able to make themselves indispensable to the Luftwaffe, which had a key airfield nearby, and this prevented them from being murdered.) Thanks in advance. buidhe 01:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Because I have Polish ancestry it's my duty to review this nomination as soon as possible. Am happy another concentration camp in modern-day Poland is nominated for A- and maybe later FA-class. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Lead[reply]

  • Dęblin–Irena was a Nazi ghetto for Jews in Irena (merged into nearby Dęblin in 1953), a Polish town located in the Lublin District I'm a little bit confused here. First why is this article called "Dęblin–Irena" if the Ghetto was only in Irena? Or is this the most commonly used term in the source?
    • Only one source has "Irena" and several have "Dęblin", while others call it "Dęblin–Irena" so that seemed a reasonable compromise between commonname and historical accuracy.
  • In 1942, two thousand Jews arrived from Slovakia and hundreds more from nearby ghettos that had been liquidated Pipe Slovakia to the First Slovak Republic.
  • The first deportation was on 6 May 1942 and took around 2,500 Jews to Sobibór extermination camp --> "The first deportation was in May 1942 and took around 2,500 Jews to Sobibór extermination camp"
    • Done
  • In October 1942, the ghetto was liquidated; about 2,500 Jews were deported --> "In October that same year, the ghetto was liquidated; about 2,500 Jews were deported"
    • Done
  • retained as inmates of forced-labor camps Link forced-labor camps.
    • I don't see how that article (Labor camp) would be helpful to understanding this subject. In my opinion, "forced-labor camp" is pretty self explanatory.
  • To me, it shouldn't be helpful to understand the subject, this might be a common term but sometimes common terms like this use information which most of the readers don't know. Like an example do you know when the first labour camp was in use? I don't think so, that's why it might be helpful to link it. If you disagree I'm fine with that because this is just my view about labour camps.

Background

  • Dęblin and Irena (Yiddish: מאדזשיץ‎, Modzhitz)[3] are located 68.7 kilometres (42.7 mi) northwest of Lublin in Poland In this sentence you used British kilometres and it's a little bit weird that both towns have only one word in Yiddish?
    • As stated below the two towns were long considered one unit. The majority of sources imply that the Yiddish word covered the entire area although some state that it was just one neighborhood.
    • Fixed British spelling
  • and at an important point on the Lublin–Warsaw rail line Was this an important station or an important rail intersection?
    • Both, but the junction was more important, I think
  • The two municipalities, having long been considered one unit, were officially merged in 1953. Weird spot to have this sentence in the background, I'd put them in the aftermath except you have a good reason?
    • I think it helps explain the confusion between Dęblin and Irena in many of the sources. Moved to footnote.
  • Local Jews supported the January Uprising of 1863 --> "Local Jews supported the January Uprising in 1863"
    • Done
  • Modzitz Rebbe Yisrael Taub settled in the town in 1889.[6][5] Re-oder the refs here.
    • Done
  • later participated in the development of the town as a summer resort.[7][3] Same as above.
    • Done
  • In 1927, the civilian population of Dęblin and Irena was 4,860, including 3,060 Jews You mean populations?
    • I think both of these are technically correct. The first usage seems to be more common.
  • Since 1927, Dęblin housed the Polish Air Force Academy --> "Dęblin also housed the Polish Air Force Academy in that same year"
    • I think that your suggestion would be confusing. The Polish Air Force Academy was founded in 1927.
  • the airfield was one of the largest in Poland. --> "its airfield was one of the largest in Poland."
    • Done
  • During the German invasion of Poland, the Luftwaffe bombed Dęblin between 2 and 7 September Add the year here?
    • Done
  • Link Polish Army
    • Done
  • on 11 September the remaining Polish forces detonated the ammunition and withdrew[10] The Wehrmacht arrived on 12 or 20 September --> "on 11 September the remaining Polish forces detonated their ammunition and withdrew,[10] while on the 12th or the 20th the Germans arrived in the region" and pipe German to Nazi Germany.
    • I don't think that's an improvement. "Germans" is less specific than "Wehrmacht" and the suggested sentence structure reads awkwardly to me.
  • community was forced to pay a fine of 20,000 złoty.[4][11][3] Re-order the refs.
    • Done
  • The Judenrat ("Jewish Council") was formed at the end of 1939[4][3] Same as above and change "1939" to "the year".
    • Done
  • later than other Judenräte in the region I assume "Judenräte" is the plural form of "Judenrat"?
    • Yes
  • conscripted for forced labor in Janiszów, Bełżec, and Pawłowice Link these places.
    • Done
  • The first chair of the Judenrat, Leizer Teichman, and the secretary were expelled in 1941 You mean chairman?
    • Yes, the words are synonymous
  • and then a Konin native named Drayfish in September 1941 Remove the year here.
    • Not done—although the last reference is to 1941, I think this could lead to confusion.

The rest will follow soon. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Staromiejska Street was removed from the ghetto in September 1942; its residents moved to Bankowa Why was it removed?
    • None of the sources say
  • so many of the Jews were able to survive by trading material goods for food With the Poles?
    • Yes, clarified this
  • A Polish-language secular school, run by Aida Milgroijm-Citronbojm, instructed 70 to 100 pupils When?
    • I would guess that this occurred throughout the existence of the ghetto, but this is not made explicit.
  • In late 1941, Poles were banned from entering the ghetto Wait a second in the above paragraph you told that Poles were allowed to enter and live in the ghetto why does this sentence do not support this, this doesn't make sense? Also we should go chronically because here we have a sentence about late 1941 but this sentence "Staromiejska Street was removed from the ghetto in September 1942;" tells us it's not chronically?
    • I'm not being completely chronological here, but a mix of chronological and topical. If I moved the second part about the boundaries changing, I feel that would be more confusing because readers would have to check back to find out what Staromiejska Street was. The first paragraph deals with the original situation/overview; the second discusses changes that happened in late 1941/early 1942.
  • at a thirty-bed hospital run by Dr. Isaar Kawa from Konin; See MOS:DOCTOR and what kinda doctor?
    • Fixed MOS. Source doesn't say.
  • some Jews fled to towns there including Dęblin–Irena;[19] twenty Jews were shot for being unregistered refugees When?
    • Source doesn't say explicitly but it is in the section dealing with late 1941/early 1942.
  • The Judenrat's command altered again as Drayfish was executed, accused of filing complaints with the Puławy County administration Name is needed here.
    • I'm not sure whose name you're looking for? Source says "In April 1942, Drayfish, among a group of local Jews sent to a penal camp in Kazimierz Dolny reportedly for registering complaints with the Pulawy Kreishauptmann’s office, was shot. Timber merchant Yisrael Weinberg replaced him."
  • These consisted mainly of Jews expelled from Puławy Ghetto and the Warthegau region Where was the Puławy Ghetto?
  • On 13 and 14 May 1942, two transports of 2,042 Slovak Jews arrived from Prešov.[20][18] Link Slovak Jews and re-oder the refs.
    • Done
  • These included 300 people from Ryki, 300 from Gniewoszów and Zwoleń, and a group from Stężyca A group of how many?
    • Not known.
  • In August 1942, 5,800 Jews were reported to be living in the ghetto, of whom only 1,800 were from Dęblin Remove the year here the last time mentioned date also used 1942 so I think it's clear to the readers.
    • Done

More coming. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I don't really have the time to continue this. 'Cause of our lockdown, school and real life issues I won't be that much online for a week or longer. :/ Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's WP:NODEADLINE. Thanks for your comments and I hope your real life issues resolve in your favor. buidhe 22:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forced labor

  • Until late 1942, Jews earned wages as forced laborers I assume they got low wages paid?
    • That's the implication, although it's not stated explicitly.
  • Many were conscripted to work for German companies such as Schwartz and Hochtief They were specialised in?
    • Reworded this part
  • Schultz was under contract for construction on the Ostbahn.[24][13] Re-order the refs here.
    • Done
  • The municipality conscripted other Jews for tasks such as street cleaning or snow clearing; these workers were not paid I would move this sentence to the first one and add "with exceptions to tasks such as street cleaning and snow clearing; these workers were not paid" These workers weren't paid even before late 1942; I think this needs clarification.
    • Reworded
  • The Jews from Dęblin–Irena tried to take the best jobs, so 200 of the Slovak --> "The Jews from Dęblin–Irena tried to take the best jobs; 200 of the Slovak"
    • Done
  • so 200 of the Slovak deportees ended up working for the municipality. Another 200 of the Slovaks worked for the Schultz firm following an expansion Do we know who they were? Communists, Jews, Poles or others?
    • The only Slovaks mentioned in this article are the Slovak Jews who were deported from Presov in May, which is discussed in the paragraph immediately preceding this section. Do you think this would benefit from additional clarification here?
  • Survivors recalled that although German soldiers supervising the forced laborers tended to treat them relatively well, some Polish supervisors beat Jews, and the Ukrainian guards at the railway camp were especially harsh This doesn't look neutral in my view; in the last few years Isreal and Poland had a controversial topic about the Holocaust. Especially when Israelians call those camps Polish after the Polish Government passed a law which would criminalise the use of the expressions "Polish death camp" and "Polish concentration camp" or Poles collaborated with the Nazis. Even if it was written by a professor I think (and I try to be neutral here) a second independent source who supports Farkash's claims is needed. And probably because this is a controversial topic without a second independent source it'd probably be removed by someone who thinks this claim is "bull shit".
    • All this says is that the postwar testimony of survivors stated something, which could be verified by looking at the individual testimonies that Farkash cites. Furthermore, the German soldiers were in this case Wehrmacht troops, and there's evidence that Wehrmacht soldiers did not mistreat Jewish forced laborers as much as the SS. This sentence has already been discussed on the talk page and was kept in.
  • Jews had to work twelve hours a day, but were treated relatively well by the Luftwaffe personnel This is the second time that let's say Germans treated the Jews relatively well; maybe add the "Luftwaffe" to "although German soldiers supervising the forced laborers tended to treat them relatively well".
    • Removed as redundant.
  • Link typhus epidemic (it has a separate article then typhus itself).
  • Epidemic typhus not.
  • "Epidemic typhus" refers to a specific type of typhus, rather than typhus epidemics.

More is coming. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I look forward to it! Thanks again. buidhe 21:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First deportation (6 May 1942)

  • The first deportation was on 6 May 1942,[30][18] Re-order the refs here.
    • Done
  • Slovak deportees who arrived a week later.[31][18][32] Same as above.
    • Done
  • Jews to assemble in the main square at 09:00 hours Hours isn't needed.
    • Removed
  • Most of the Jews from neighboring communities Does this sentence miss something?
    • Removed, as it is discussed in the next paragraph
  • and 2,300 to 2,500 from Dęblin—mainly the elderly --> "and 2,300–2,500 from Dęblin—mainly the elderly"
    • Not done.
  • fter the deportation, the bodies of the dead were collected at the synagogue and removed from the ghetto in carts To where?
    • Source doesn't say.
  • deportations in the Lublin district --> "deportations in the Lublin District" Proper noun?
    • Capitalized

That's it for now; more coming. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second deportation (15 October 1942)

  • I'm not sure why the dates are needed in both the First and Second deportation?
    • I thought that the dates were helpful, but since you disagree I've removed them.
  • Under the command of SS-Obersturmführer Grossman; gendarmes Did Nazi Germany had a gendarme?
    • I wasn't sure exactly what force Crago was referring to, so I followed the source.
  • Many Jews tried to enter the Luftwaffe camp I'm a little bit confused why they did that?
    • Clarified
  • Talia Farkash estimates that about 500, including 60–90 young children A little introduction of hers is helpful?
    • Moved descriptor to first mention
  • were shot while clearing the houses.[18][10] Re-order the refs here.
    • Done
  • about 100 total --> "about 100 in total"
    • Done
  • retained to clean up the ghetto.[18][10] Re-order the refs here.
    • Done
  • Perhaps another 100 Jews were hiding illegally in the ghetto
    • I'm not sure what change you're suggesting here?
  • Oops, I forgot to add the question here. How can Jews illegally hide in their own ghetto? Didn't they want to work? And if they hide weren't the Germans not hunting them?
  • The Germans ordered all the Jews to report and be deported; these are those who refused without permission. Changed "illegaly" to "without permission" to make this more clear. The Germans were probably looking for them.[original research?]
  • Dęblin Fortress and 200–500 of the Luftwaffe's workers.[18][10] --> "Dęblin Fortress and 200–500 of the Luftwaffe's workers.[18][10]" Re-oder the refs here.
    • Done
  • Estimates of the number at the Luftwaffe camp range frmo 1,000 (Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos) A from typo here.
    • Fixed
  • rest were deported in late 1943.[18][10] Re-order the refs here.
    • Done
  • hundreds of Jews were still alive, they were murdered during Operation Harvest Festival Because this was part of an operation I'd change "murdered" to "killed".
    • The operation was exclusively to murder Jews.

More coming. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camp leader

  • The camp leader (German: Lagerälteste) at the Luftwaffe Unlink German because it's too common.
    • Done
  • Is there a better picture than this "File:UT_2_w_Szkole_Orlat_w_Deblinie.jpg"? It doesn't really make sense to add an image about the Polish Air Force in the town in 1947 if we are talking about the camp leader and the conditions.
    • That was the closest in time photograph that I could find of the airfield, which I think is good to show a picture of. You can see other photographs of the airfield in Commons:Category:Lotnicza Akademia Wojskowa, although many of them are under dubious licensing. There are no free German photographs that I'm aware of.

More coming. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conditions

  • good compared to other camps.[48][42] Re-order the refs.
  • were allowed to practice their religion.[49][29] Same as above.
  • The children received education in Polish, but had to hide when the SS conducted inspections This is so confusing; they received education by whom?
    • Clarify
  • with the camp command was partially responsible for the good conditions What was the other responsible part?
    • Farkash is vague on this point, and I think it would be misreprenting her to say that it was entirely responsible, but she doesn't explicitly mention any other factors.
  • What's a Volkesdeutscher?
  • friction between the two communities.[55][27] Re-order the refs.

More coming. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • it was illegal for them to settle in town --> "it was illegal for them to settle in the town"
    • Done
  • prisoner of the ghetto,[18][10] Re-order the refs here.

Second review

  • It looks like that the lead doesn't summarise the background, Ghetto, Forced labor and the Aftermath section which it should by MOS:LEAD.
    • Done
  • pay a fine of 20,000 złoty.[5][4][12] Re-order the refs here and do we know how much that is in the major currencies (US dollar, Euro or British pounds) today?
    • It's very difficult to say given the unsettled situation of the Polish currency just after the German invasion, before a fixed exchange rate (with reichsmarks) was established.
  • consisting of local Volksdeutsche and Ukrainian auxiliaries Can you add here a note what Volksdeutsche means?
    • done
  • the Dęblin train station (some 2.5 kilometers (1.6 mi) away) Per MOS:UNITNAMES; this is the second time we mention here km fully written.
    • done
  • received kosher food for the week of Passover.[52][44] Re-order the refs here.
  • Link Sergeant Major.
    • done

That's it I believe. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks so much for your review; I have made the requested changes.
  • I'd like to support this article but I first want to see if PM's comments could be addressed and become a support. Originally their comments were also my comments but I dropped them because he already comment it and I'm not gonna comment something which is already mentioned by another review. But he got a point and I believe their comments should be first addressed before I could give you my support. Anything else looks great. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    CPA-5, As I stated below, I don't think the ghetto and labor camp are independently notable from each other, or that a split would improve the article. I'm happy to retitle to something like The Holocaust in Dęblin–Irena or History of the Jews in Dęblin–Irena (1939–1945) but both these titles are basically WP:OR as sources don't use them. buidhe 23:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long time no see Buidhe, hopefully you are all right? But that's true and sadly sometimes OR is needed to settle down the discussion or follow the guidelines. Of course I'm not saying that ORs' titles like those are needed here and now. Anyway, the title was, in general, okay to me and all my comments are now addressed; which means I can give it a support. Am happy to see another Polish Holocaust article getting an FA-class (and hopefully it will maintain like that). Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Piotrus[edit]

I have reviewed this before GA, and the article is still solid. There was some sock activity in early January but I think the sock has been weeded out in a wide range proxy range ban, so the article is stable. I am still mildly concerned whether the aftermath section isn't overly detailed, and would welcome further comments on this. Still, I cannot figure out which article any of the information from it would belong instead, and it would be a shame to lose referenced content. So right now I don't have any changes to suggest, nor errors to point out. Good job :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since the last review the article name has been changed, I would like to hear the rationale, since none is given on article's talk. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Both CPA-5 and Peacemaker67 objected to the fact that the article's content did not exactly match what the title suggested it would be. This is a fair objection, but it wouldn't be appropriate to split the article because 1) any split would involve large amounts of duplication and 2) the ghetto and Luftwaffe camp are not independently notable and 3) it would lead to the deletion of encyclopedic material, for instance on the other labor camps besides the Luftwaffe camp or detail on deportations which passed through Deblin. (t · c) buidhe 01:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. I have no objections or concerns to raise. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant opposeCommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Great work on this so far, but I am having trouble with what the scope of the article is. I have a few comments:

  • the Background section goes into things that happened after the ghetto was established (in the last para). I suggest moving this down into the Ghetto section and integrating it with the material in that section
    • Not done—since sources disagree over which of the Judenrat were in charge at one time, splitting this material up would increase confusion.
  • Sonderdienst means "special service" (dienst meaning service) not "special forces" (Spezialeinheiten) which has a totally different connotation relating to elite troops.
    • Fixed
  • suggest "local Volksdeutsche who were later supplemented by Ukrainian auxiliaries recruited after the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941."
    • Source doesn't say so, so it would be original research
  • "More Jews arrived in May 1941: 1,000 from the ghettos at Warsaw, Częstochowa, and Opole, although they were not housed in the ghetto but at work sites in the area" really isn't about this ghetto
  • "On 13 and 14 May 1942, two transports totalling 2,042 Slovak Jews"
    • Done
  • link Hochtief
    • Done
  • The Forced labor section is all over the place chronologically, and also strays from sticking to information about the ghetto and its occupants, and seems to refer to other forced labor camps and projects in the district for which the link to the ghetto isn't clear
    • All the camps were located in the town of Deblin/Irena.
  • this also applies in the Deportation, murder, and liquidation section, where there are details of deportations from places other than this ghetto
    • I do think it's relevant to mention deportations that passed through the town in a substantial way and would have been noticed by the local Jews, and to contexualize the deportation of Irena's Jews as part of a systematic operation.
  • was the Luftwaffe camp part of the ghetto? The ghetto has been defined in geographical terms earlier, and doesn't appear to include the Luftwaffe camp
  • I'm reluctantly putting this review on hold as an oppose, because I don't think it sticks to the existing scope of the ghetto, and ranges across Holocaust-related activities throughout the district or region, including Jews who were apparently never held in the ghetto and forced laborers who didn't live in the ghetto. I suggest it be trimmed down to focus much more closely on ghetto-related material only, or properly expanded to cover all Holocaust-related activities in the district or region, with appropriate retitling. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I considered a split, but I'm not sure that either the ghetto or the Luftwaffe forced-labor camp are independently notable, since there is only one source which goes into detail on the ghetto and two for the forced labor camp. Such a split would also require duplicating a lot of material. I am happy to retitle but I don't think a title such as "The Holocaust in Dęblin–Irena" would be suitable since it does not occur in any of the sources and I've never seen such a descriptor applied to towns (only countries and regions). buidhe 22:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How's the review going PM? A couple of weeks have been passed without any replies here? This just reminds me I should continue mine too. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retitle[edit]

I've retitled the article "History of the Jews in Dęblin–Irena during World War II" and rewritten the lead to address the scope concerns. @Peacemaker67 and CPA-5: Thanks so much for your comments, I wonder if you would consider supporting? Thanks, buidhe 21:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have another look. I'm conscious that this is getting a bit old, and that I'm procrastinating about several of your noms. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate your feedback, you always have something helpful to say. buidhe 03:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restart
  • the scope issue is resolved as far as I am concerned
  • Slovakia needs a link in the lead, as does Austria (suggest Austria under National Socialism
    • Done
  • "Thousands of Jews lived in the towns" as we are talking about two municipalities at the time
    • done
  • "became a collection centers"
    • done
  • you could link Lublin District
    • done
  • "returned to the towns"
    • Reworded
  • link Vistula
    • Not done, already linked at first mention in Background section
  • The Wehrmacht arrived - I think you mean the German Army? Unless the Luftwaffe also arrived?
    • Done. (Source actually says Wehrmacht but it's being used as a synonym for the German Army)
  • just be consistent with the hyphenation of compound adjectives like forced-labor ie "forced labor units"
    • done
  • move the link to Konin to first mention
    • Done
  • suggest "and after the ghetto was established, warned residents of searches" as the ghetto hasn't been mentioned to this point
    • Done
  • link Warsaw District
    • These are references to the city, linked to that.
  • do you mean "winter clothing requisitionedconfiscated"?
    • done
  • "twenty young women being shot" when?
  • "twenty Jews were shot" when?
    • The source doesn't say exactly when these events happened, but implies that it happened over the winter of 1941–1942.
  • link Puławy County
    • Not done because our article on Puławy County is a new administrative division (since 1999) that does not include Deblin (which is currently in Ryki County). I think a link would be more confusing than helpful especially since neither article has any information on the Nazi administration in the area.
  • suggest using "German-annexed Reichsgau Wartheland" instead of Warthegau region
    • Done
  • when referring to Dęblin or Irena do you mean Dęblin–Irena? Suggest being consistent and using the hyphenated one
    • Well, both the ghetto and the Luftwaffe camp were in Irena, so deleted many of the references to Deblin and made sure that references were consistent.
  • "the Ukrainian guards at the railway camp were especially harsh" what railway camp? First mention I can see
    • Clarified
  • suggest linking Ukrainian Auxiliary Police
    • Done
  • link SS
  • link Obersturmführer
    • done
  • "About 215 to 500 Jews were shot while the Germans and their helpers were clearing the houses"
    • Done
  • "Estimates of the number at the Luftwaffe camp range from 1,000 (Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos)[17] to 2,000 (Silberklang),[28]"
    • Done
  • Poniatowa→ Poniatowa concentration camp
    • Done
  • suggest "Hundreds of Jews were still alive in the remaining labor camps in Puławy County, but they were murdered during Operation Harvest Festival (2–3 November 1943)."
    • Done
  • for collaborator link collaborationism
    • Done
  • suggest Shabbat→the Sabbath, as that is by far the most common word used in English
    • Not for the Jewish Sabbath, which is overwhelmingly called "Shabbat" in English-language sources.
  • do the sources say what sergeant major rank these men were? Stabsfeldwebel?
    • Unfortunately, they just say "Sergeant Major" without further clues.
  • drop the comma from "Although Kattengel was distrusted, because he roamed the camp with a dog and whip"
    • Done
  • link Red Army
    • Done
  • "being run by the WehrmachtLuftwaffe"
    • No, the source specifically states "Wehrmacht"
  • "Milicja Obywatelska police chief"
    • done
  • suggest adding that Brandt was tried by a Soviet military court and shot
    • Done
  • you may not have any another image for the top, but the top image would be better in the relevant section
    • since most readers won't read past the lead, I think it's better to keep the image where it will be seen.

That's it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

The sources are almost entirely scholarly, the trivial exceptions are used appropriately. The article appears to be well sourced. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2020 (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) 15:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Nassau Agreement[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Nassau Agreement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Nassau agreement (also known as the Skybolt crisis) came about when the US decided to cancel the Skybolt missile, which the UK had based its independent nuclear deterrent on. After a series of negotiations, the US permitted the UK to buy the Polaris submarine instead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

I think that's anything. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: You happy with Hawkeye's responses? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape, I reviewed it at GAN in late 2017, couldn't find a real lot then and have looked at what has changed since. I only have a few comments:

Lead
  • "cancellation of the Skybolt air-launched ballistic missile project" with link to Air-launched ballistic missile, and drop the later link
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "enabled the UK Polaris programme"→"enabled the Polaris submarine-launched ballistic missile programme" with links, and drop the later links
    checkY re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • for Britain's nuclear deterrent link Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom
    checkY Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "cited Britain's dependence on the United States under the Nassau Agreement as one of the main reasons..."
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Body
  • link ballistic missile submarine at first mention
    checkY linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • say who Dean Acheson was
    checkY Ooops. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "making the prospect far less interesting" seems an odd turn of phrase
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Ministry of Defence"
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • if it is necessary to italicise En route (I don't think it is as it is in widespread use in English and is in Merriam-Webster, it should be encased in {{lang-fr}} per MOS:OTHERLANG
    checkY I think of it as French, but I believe it is in common enough usage to not require italics. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • "The missiles were equipped with British warheads" which one?
    checkY ET.317. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to which various nations contributinged ships"
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • say who Richard Neustadt was
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I could find this time around. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Just a few things.
  • I'm a bit surprised to find no mention of the presence in Nassau of Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, who wanted a similar deal for his country, but was on the outs with both Kennedy and Macmillan and did not get it. In fact, the presence of Diefenbaker, who had an awkward lunch with both men, may have contributed to Kennedy's hasty departure. Google "Diefenbaker Nassau Agreement".
    Aaarggh! This is the sort of comment that one always fears, but also the main reason that one puts articles up for review. I'll confess that I didn't know about this, and it wasn't in my sources, but now that I'm aware, I will add it to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Added a section on Canada. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I sympathize entirely.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but avoided cancellation by reprogramming $70 million from the previous year's allocation.[23]" I might say "appropriation" rather than "allocation"
    checkY Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, met with President Dwight Eisenhower, at Camp David near Washington in March 1960, and secured permission to buy Skybolt without strings attached." I would delete the second comma. Camp David is not THAT near to Washington by the way.
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you want to update the 2019 inflation equivalents to 2020?
    The {{Inflation/year}} template is is used, so it will automatically update the year and the amounts when more recent data is uploaded.
  • In Grimond's comment, do you want to correct B52 to B-52?
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

All sources seem to be of encyclopedic quality and are appropriately and consistently used with the following exceptions;

  • ISBNs cited seem to be a mix of 10 digit and 13 digits.
    I just take them from the indicia of the books. A bot usually comes along and reformats them. But the MilHistBot has this functionality too, so converted them all to isbn13. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pre-2007, 10-digit ISBNs are perfectly acceptable as that's when 13-digit ones were introduced.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Bothwell, is "Univ of British Columbia Press" the formal name of the publisher?
    (Has a look at the indicia.) It says "UBC Press", so gone with that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boyes needs a location.
    It isn't in the indicia, so added from the publisher's website. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dumbrell, John (2006). A special relationship: Anglo-American relations from the Cold War to Iraq." This is a book, so shouldn't this title be in title case?
    Altered to title case. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Jones, "Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire". Given that Milton Park is the name of the industrial estate it's on, it may be too local to mention.
    Oh. Dropped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moore, Richard (2010). Nuclear Illusion, Nuclear Reality: Britain, the United States and Nuclear Weapons 1958–64. Nuclear Weapons and International Security since 1945. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan. ISBN 978-0-230-21775-1. OCLC 705646392." Is Nuclear weapons and International Security since 1945 part of the title or a misplaced motto?
    No, it is the name of the series. There are four of them so far, each covering six years. [70] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Priest, Andrew (July 2005). "'In Common Cause': The NATO Multilateral Force and the Mixed-Manning Demonstration on the USS Claude V. Ricketts, 1964–1965". The Journal of Military History. 69 (3): 759–789. JSTOR 3397118." Should the name of the ship be italicised?
    Italicised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No spot-checks done. I don't own any of the books.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

This is a very good article. I have the following comments:

  • "and reduced the risk of a nuclear strike on the British Isles" - is this in regards to Polaris more effectively deterring the Soviets, or increasing the suitability of the British nuclear weapons to a Soviet first strike? (or both?)
    Primarily the first: unlike bombers or missiles, it could not be neutralised by a first strike. Added words to that effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Polaris was a better weapon system for the UK's needs" - it would be good to expand upon this, as this is an important issue underpinning this article. The UK was hugely vulnerable to a first strike, with such an attack being expected to destroy the country as a functioning entity and kill most of the political and military chains of command in a matter of minutes. As a result, a nuclear weapons deterrent dependent on successfully launching bombers during the "three minute warning" wasn't very credible. Sending the deterrent to sea changed things completely, as it was now expected to survive the destruction of the UK and be able to launch a retaliatory attack.
    Added a bit more on British nuclear strategy, which evolved over time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the British Polaris missiles operate under a dual key system? My understanding is that they didn't. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's correct. The British do not use PALs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Treaty of Lutatius[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Treaty of Lutatius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The peace treaty that ended the 27-year-long First Punic War. A departure for me, being the first time I have nominated a non-conflict higher than GAN, so I suspect that it needs lots of feedback. Relatively bite sized by my standards, so let me have your thoughts. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • Pass alll images are free, appropriately sourced etc. buidhe 20:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review—pass
  • Everything looks OK to me. No source checks done. (t · c) buidhe 00:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias[edit]

Right, I'll brush away the tumbleweed, and have a look.

  • Overall, I'm not convinced about the balance of the article. The lead, summarising the article gives about 20% of the word count to explaining the First Punic War. The article gives about 45% coverage to the First Punic War: while I agree that providing enough background to the treaty is necessary, I don't think that it is necessary to rehash the whole war in as much detail as is provided here. How much of what is provided is necessary context for the treaty?
Fair point. It is obviously a subjective judgement, but I do seem to have gone overboard. I have cut back, and tried to only detail events relevant to the treaty.
  • It seems odd that the coin image caption is left-aligned, when the rest are centred.
It is centered. Check the code. Not sure why it comes out like that.
  • What is the scope of "Romano-Greek history"? With no wikilink, I find this term unclear.
It's what the source says. I have tried a couple of more detailed phrases, but they look too much like OR, so I have removed it.
  • "..and the greatest naval war of the ancient world.." "greatest": largest, most impressive, most significant, best? It is a slightly ambiguous term in this context.
Switched to 'largest and longest'.
  • "..it was left to Gisco.." Wikilink Gisco.
Gah. And I created the article! Senility is a terrible thing.
  • "A commission of ten was.." Any more detail on this commission? One source I glanced at suggests that they were senators?
Well now, I have done a fair bit of research on this. Two learned texts simply say "ten commissioners"; Goldsworthy writes of "a senatorial commission" (not the same thing IMO as saying that all of its members were senators); three other good RSs mention the increase without detailing how it was negotiated/imposed; Hoyos says "ten special envoys ... senators no doubt" - which I take to mean that he is guessing. Then Ah ha! Rankov says " a commission of ten senators". Personally I am loath to cherry pick one source from eight to state in Wikipedia's voice that they were senators when it is not something that I need to make a decision about. Nor do I think it something where it is useful to go into all the detail so a reader can form their own opinion. Obviously, I am open to persuasion on either of those points.
Maybe use Goldsworthy's "senatorial commission"? It gives the reader some idea of the formation of it, at least. It's not going to affect my support given what you've said though. Harrias talk 15:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been suggested that this was to enable the money borrowed to build the recently victorious fleet could be promptly repaid." The grammar has gone a bit wrong here.
Indeed. "could" → 'to'.
  • Note 9 feels like it should be included in the main body of text, as it makes up part of the treaty.
Assuming you mean note 8, fair enough. Incorporated.
Yes. Inept placement of the link by me. Moved. (Is there too much detail on this war?)
  • "cynically stated" Has a hint of MOS:OPED without attribution.
Removed and added some direct quotes at the end of the paragraph.

That's it from me at the moment. Harrias talk 09:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harrias and apologies for taking so long to get back to you. It was mostly me being lazy, and partly my being determined to find who said that the ten commissioners were all senators. Any hoo, all of your comments addressed above, see what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: I wonder if you feel able to support or oppose this nomination yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with it now. Harrias talk 15:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, sorry I don't know enough (anything) to comment on content or sources. I have a few minor comments/suggestions, though: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest splitting the first paragraph of the lead somewhere
Good point. Done.
  • It received its name --> suggest "The treaty received its name"
Done.
  • It has been suggested that --> "Goldsworthy suggests that..."? (attribute in text)?
Done.
  • the caption for "File:Stele des Polybios.jpg" probably needs attribution in text
It is attributed in text at first mention - "Dexter Hoyos describes him as "a remarkably well-informed, industrious, and insightful historian" " - and it seems unnecessary (to me) to reattribute at second mention.
Ok, no worries -- I'd missed that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest upscaling the maps a little
OK. Done. How do they look now on your screen?
Still a bit small, but I can live with it -- it's probably just me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • necessary to have another fleet built and manned --> "necessary to build and man another fleet"?
Done.
  • Casson, Erdkamp and Rankov aren't specifically cited, so might be better placed in a Further reading section
I am not sure how that happened. Thanks for picking it up. I have removed them entirely.
Thanks for that AR. Very helpful. I have addressed your comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; added my support above. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

It's been a while since I read anything focused on this war, but I do have a passing familiarity with it. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • I'd suggest noting the date the treaty was agreed in the first sentence
Done.
  • "A commission of ten was sent to settle the matter." - what side were these people from?
Clarified.
  • "Polybius was an analytical historian and wherever possible personally interviewed participants in the events he wrote about" - given the time lag though, this is a bit confusing in this war as the participants would have all been dead. I'd suggest omitting at least the second half of this sentance
Fair point. I have taken out the whole sentence.
  • Can the decisive naval battle described in the para starting with 'In late 243 BC' be linked?
Oops. Done.

Nick-D (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, thanks for that, all caught me dead to rights. Your points addressed above. How's it looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those changes look great, and I'm pleased to support this nomination Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

  • which ended the First Punic War after 23 years It's probably me but, I think this sentence is incomplete and I have the feeling "of fighting" should be included. It's probably optional but whatever.
One would say "The game ended after 90 minutes" without feeling a need to add "of play" because that would be assumed from the use of "game". No doubt you could think of lots of similar examples. Similarly IMO, the use of "War" would make adding 'of fighting' redundant, or (strictly IMO) a little clumsy. So I would prefer to leave it as it is.
  • Well, I do have the feeling to add them, of course, I'll blame my basic English classes in the past few years for tattooing this onto my brain. Cheers.
  • army commander on Sicily, Hamilcar Hamilcar's name is incomplete.
Oops. Thanks. Fixed.
  • of 3,200 talents of silver – 82,000 kg (81 long tons) --> "of 3,200 talents of silver – 82,000 kilograms (81 long tons)"
Fixed.
  • of an additional 1,200 talent indemnity How much is 1,200 talent in metric and English units? Also this is a compound adjective.
Convertion added. I don't see the compound - could you point it out for me?
  • @Gog the Mild: As I look to the sentence, it might have to do with the "an additional" part. If it's not a compound adjective then I'd recommend adding an extra "s" behind the word talent. 'Cause it now looks like a typo.
No. You were right. 1,200 talent does need hyphenating. Done.
  • is the historian Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BC), a Greek A circa template is needed here.
You've lost me here. What is the problem with the circa templates I have used? They seem to present the information as the MoS would wish. But you have a more detailed knowledge of that than me.
  • Hm, it's quite strange here, I was sure the second circa hadn't a circa template, hm. I assume I was wrong. Cheers.
Ah ha! You have been working too hard. I suggest a nice quiet lie down in a dark room.
  • but he is known today for his The Histories Could be possibly me but the "his" looks and sounds really odd to me in this sentence.
I think it looks odd because it is followed by "The", which is unusual, but it is a correct construction. I have taken out "his", I think that a reader can work out from context who wrote it.
  • Exactly, I know it was a correct construction but indeed, both "his" and "the" aren't usual and might sound or read strangely. Well at least as a non-native English speaker it was strange, but, I don't know maybe you Brits doesn't see this strange or maybe a local dialect in the UK I don't know. I only can say for sure it looked strange to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Good spot. It reads more smoothly now.

Would continue later on. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that CPA-5. Good as always to have your beady eyes on my sloppy prose. Your points addressed and I am eagerly awaiting the next installment. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long tons is overlinked.
Fixed.
  • much of the coastal regions of North Africa Unlink North Africa; major geographic areas shouldn't be linked.
Done.
  • In 264 BC Carthage and Rome were the preeminent powers in the western Mediterranean Per Ngram pre-eminent is more commonly use.
Done.
  • had come to dominate southern Spain Because this is in the ancient world shouldn't it Hispania?
Done.
  • When Hamilcar Barca took command of the Carthaginians on Sicily in 247 BC he was only given a small army I believe a comma after BC. It's a pretty long sentence without semi-colon, comma or full stop.
Grudging done.
  • a Greek sent to Rome in 167 BC as a hostage Rome is too common to link.
Indeed. Stupid of me.
  • I see -ise in formalised and -ize in realizing?
Now "realising"; good spot.
  • After receiving the order to make peace, Hamilcar refused, claiming the surrender was unnecessary; it is possible that for political and prestige reasons Hamilcar did not wish to be associated with the treaty which formalised Carthage's defeat in the 23-year-long war. Could you split this?
Done.
  • of Lilybaeum, to broker the peace terms.[49][50][48] Re-order the citations here.
Done.
  • Gisco and Catulus agreed that Carthage would hand over what it still held of Sicily; release all Roman prisoners without ransom, although ransom would need to be paid to secure the release of prisoners held by the Romans; and pay an indemnity of 2,200 talents of silver – 57,000 kg (56 LT) – over 20 years Split this, use kilograms, and replace LT with long tons.
Not split; it's a list, appropriately semi-coloned and it seems entirely comprehensible to me. Kilograms and long tons.
  • with the additional 1,000 talents payable How much is 1,000 talents?
Added.
  • Eventually the troops mutinied and turned against Carthage Aren't mutineers always against their overlords? Maybe replace "turned against Carthage" to "fighting broke out"? Mutineers are not always as violent as most of think.
Good spot. Tweaked.
  • Rome for protection, which was refused.[59][56][60] Re-order the citations.
Done.
  • were added to the treaty as a codicil.[66][63] Same as above.
Done.
  • I'd like to have some more information about the aftermath in both Sardinia and Corsica.
A little added.
  • I'd also like know were there mutinies in Corica?
The sources don't mention any. (Which one would expect them to if there had been any, but, frankly, who knows.)
  • Note 4, 2,000 talents was approximately 52,000 kg (51 long tons) --> "2,000 talents was approximately 52,000 kilograms (51 long tons)"
Done.
  • Unlink the second time mentioned Gaius Lutatius Catulus, Carthage and Rome in the infobox.
Gah! Done.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: All done, including your follow up comments from your first installment. Thanks for that. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to move "File:Map_of_Rome_and_Carthage_at_the_start_of_the_Second_Punic_War" file a little bit down? I have the feeling it belongs in the aftermath section.
I could, and you are correct that that is where it really belongs, but it looks horrible - see here or here. Of the three, the current one seems the least bad. I am, obviously, open to discussion on this, it's a subjective issue.
  • They both look awful; I'm not really a fan and it's pretty strange to have an image in the wrong sentence. But I totally wouldn't support one of those corrections maybe within ten years or so, there would be a solution made by someone or Wikipedia.
  • After reading the "Talent" article I just realised there also were other talents types. Kinda like the modern-day tons or medieval measurement which differs from country or even region to region. For instead if Polybius wrote those measurements and he was a Greek does that mean he used "Attic talent" or "Aeginetan talent"? However he also could using Roman talents and in the "Evidence of Carthage's financial situation includes their request for a 2,000-talent loan from Ptolemaic Egypt, which was refused" sentence it could be Egyptian talents. Can you figure out which one are we talking about?
According to Lazenby, The First Punic War: A Military History, p. 158, it was Euboic talents in the case of the treaty. (For some information on this see the fifth sentence of Talent (measurement).) Having just checked five sources they are a bit vague on the Egyptian loan - which seems fair enough given that it didn't actually happen. There seems to be a feeling in the sources that the Carthaginians would have requested the loan in their own, familiar Euboic talents. 2,000 of these was 60,480 kg. If it had been Egyptian talents - which it probably wasn't - it would have been 54,000 kg. For something which didn't happen, they seem close enough to each other to me, even if the sources don't wish to categorically state that the request was in Euboic talents.
@CPA-5: Good points. Addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Cambridge Ancient History Part confirms that they were Euboic (they say "Euboeic") talents. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: That sounds great to hear. We do know the specific talents, that's great. I'm not really a fan of adding every talent in the article the word "Euboic"; I don't believe there is a policy here on Wikipedia and I don't think someone would complain. But we can add a note at their first appearance and note that this article uses Euboic talents. What do you think, unless there is a policy of course? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Yes, very well picked up. I am not aware of a policy. I have added a footnote by the first mention, to clarify for any aficionados of talents. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2020 (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) 11:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Partisan Congress riots[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Buidhe (talk)

Partisan Congress riots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article is about anti-Jewish rioting in postwar Slovakia. It's a bit off the beat but I believe it is in scope as it was primarily caused by former Slovak partisans at an official congress of the Union of Slovak Partisans, an anti-Nazi veterans' association. The article just received an excellent copyedit from Gog the Mild, whom I can't thank enough for his help, but I'm not quite brave enough to jump straight to FAC. Any comments more than welcome! buidhe 20:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

I have just looked at this for GOCE, and I had an eye on it progressing. I will have a look at it shortly. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having read/skimmed through this again, I can see no issues - all of those I picked up during the copy edit have been satisfactorily addressed. The criteria all seem to be met and I am happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

  • Does "File:Námestie Slobody (Gottwaldovo tér, egykor Esterházy tér), Postapalota. Fortepan 51364.jpg" not need a {{FoP-Slovakia}} tag? Or is it excused because of its age? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • plus Added I'm not sure, but it can't hurt anyway. buidhe 13:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

I know there is no requirement to do so, but is there a reason this hasn't been put through GAN? I have a few comments:

    • I just thought that the article was likely to languish for months at GAN, considering the backlog at the time.
  • wasn't it Czechoslovakia rather than Slovakia in 1946?
    • There was no significant anti-Jewish violence in the Czech lands, so there isn't an article on it; also, Slovakia was an autonomous area and its government made most of the relevant decisions. My usage follows Cichopek who states, "Although Slovakia was reunited with the Czech lands after the war, it retained a large degree of autonomy until 1949. In this book, I use 'Slovakia' when speaking of issues relevant only to this region and 'Czechoslovakia' when discussing the entire country after the war." (3) I added more info on the postwar political situation in the Background section.
      • But it wasn't a separate country, so it needs to placed into its geo-political context. Suggest the first sentence is amended to read "The Partisan Congress riots were attacks on Jews in Bratislava and other cities and towns within the autonomous Slovakia region of Czechoslovakia between 1 and 6 August 1946, as part of the anti-Jewish violence in postwar Slovakia" and add a link to the autonomous Slovakia that is being referred to. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure that the first sentence of the lede is the place to go into detail on the constitutional status of postwar Slovakia, but I have tweaked the lead to make it clear that the sovereign state is Czechoslovakia. buidhe 22:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • It absolutely is. The problem with the current formulation is that Slovakia was a subdivision of Czechoslovakia, and when you start talking about Slovak cities and towns in the first sentence and then go on to use Slovak elsewhere in the lead, it begs the question of what you are talking about, ethnic Slovak cities or within a Slovak geopolitical entity. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link antisemitic
    • done
  • "A national conference" was it national though? Were there Czechs involved as well? perhaps use congress rather than conference throughout to avoid any possible confusion
    • Changed to "congress" throughout. "Celoslovenský" literally translates as all + Slovak, the Czech partisans had a separate organization. However, after the war Czechs and Slovaks were percieved as separate nations
  • weren't the Hlinka Guard also involved in the burning of villages along with Einsatzgruppe H? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Hlinka Guard Emergency Divisions did help with executions, but I've not read of them razing villages. If they did it was under German direction and is not mentioned in the cited source. buidhe 22:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Background section, some mention needs to be made of Czechoslovakia being reinstituted after the war and that there was a Slovak sub-division
    • Done
  • for Agrarian, link Republican Party of Farmers and Peasants or Agrarianism
    • Done
  • drop the cap on Communists
    • I left the capitalization and linked Communist Party of Slovakia (1939), because I think the author is referring to members of that political party.
  • Slovaks is used to describe the people throughout, but of course these people were Czechoslovaks, and some of the people in what had been the Slovak State were not ethnic Slovaks at all, but Hungarians and other minorities. This grates and seems ahistorical and exclusive of others living in this part of Czechoslovakia. Perhaps this is just a lack of knowledge about the internal divisions within Czechoslovakia, but if there was a formal division between Czech and Slovak parts of Czechoslovakia in 1946 (indicated by the reference to the autonomous Slovak government, then this should be introduced early in the article.
    • Where "Slovaks" are discussed in the Background section, it follows the sources and refers to ethnic Slovaks, not Hungarians or other minority groups. The rest of the article avoids ethnic references. I'm well aware that Czechoslovakia was a multiethnic state, but in this case the incidents were caused mostly by ethnic Slovaks and not Hungarians, as discussed in the media coverage section.
  • Topoľčany pogrom is duplinked, as is Slovak in the lang templates
    • The first time Topoľčany pogrom is linked it could be missed by readers, so I think the second link is helpful. Edited the lang template to fix the other duplink.
  • "government passed the Restitution Act"
    • Done
  • "or national administrators, many of whom were former partisans or other resistance members" this has already been explained
    • Done
  • drop the comma from "mostly unsuccessful, attempts"
    • Done
  • First National Congress of Partisans and Partisan Congress should not be bolded, per MOS:BOLD
    • Done
  • first name for Masariak?
    • Not stated in the source or any other I can find.
  • drop the parens from "(Previous to that,...)"
    • Done
  • link hand grenade (did these explode?)
    • Done, not stated in source
  • 1:30 in the morning→01:30 on 3 August, given you are using 24 hour clock
    • Done
  • this last sentence is really about 3 August, so should probably be moved to the 3 August section
    • Done
  • contigents→contingents
    • Fixed
  • "former Slovak People's Party regime", I assume it had been disestablished by this point?
    • Added
  • did these anti-Jewish attacks occur elsewhere in Czechoslovakia?
    • There were no significant anti-Jewish attacks in the Czech lands.
  • On 6 August 1946, the Slovak News Agency
    • Done
  • The Czech News Agency reported the riots
    • Done
  • who is Mlynárik? author? historian? First name?
  • suggest using Council of Jewish Religious Communities in Bohemia and Moravia each time instead of just "Council"
    • Done
  • suggest "destroyed during the uprisingSlovak National Uprising"
    • Done
  • passersby
    • Done
  • is there a reason why Šmigeľ (2017) hasn't been used in the article?
    • It doesn't have any information that's not in his 2011 essay. Also, I suspect it is a predatory open access journal. However, since the Slovak print source is difficult to track down it helps with verifying some of his statements.

That's all I have. Great job thus far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for the review! I think I've fixed everything. buidhe 04:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peacemaker, any further thoughts on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of my comments have been adequately addressed and I have a related underlying concern about POV. Frankly, the seeming reluctance to acknowledge clearly in the first sentence that this occurred in a country called Czechoslovakia strikes me as really odd. Slovakia was not a country in 1946, it was a political unit of Czechoslovakia. To not acknowledge the contemporary geopolitics and clearly place this in its historical context is frankly recentist and ahistorical, as is the use of the term Slovaks and Slovak without linking that to the ethnicity (in fact linking is inexplicably avoided in both the lead and the body), and instead giving the impression throughout that it was a nationality at the time. The same goes for referring to Slovak cities and towns when there were non-Slovaks living in these lands. As it is now, unless they read the note (which is frankly highly undesirable in a lead, especially when it downplays an important piece of context), the reader would be confused wondering why the Czechoslovak police were even involved when reading the lead, as they would be under the impression that this occurred in a country called Slovakia. The whole article is written this way, except for a few minor acknowledgements. It is frankly POV in my view, and I won't be supporting promotion until it is resolved. I would also add that an additional sentence or two (beyond the single sentence about economic antisemitism) about the history of anti-Semitism amongst ethnic Slovaks (assuming the perpetrators of these riots were all ethnic Slovaks) prior to WWII is a necessary addition, given neither of the articles in the main template adequately discusses that aspect. Also delegetes→delegates, and Czechia needs a link. And the quote boxes give undue weight to state propaganda which is refuted by the body of the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have a fair point about the quoteboxes, which have been removed. All of the sources say Slovaks, Slovakia and emphasize the role of the Bratislava government. Maybe that is ahistorical and POV of them, but I don't see what I can do about that. I've rewritten the first sentence of the article and linked "Czechia" and "Slovaks" as you think it would be helpful. Although none of the sources mention pre-1938/1939 events as a relevant aspect of the background or causes of the riots, it might be worthwile to add for context. I'll see what I can do about that. buidhe 02:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've had a go at adding more some background on the history of Jews in Bratislava, let me know what you think. buidhe 03:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey PM, just a little reminder to both of you. How's the progress? It looks like Buidhe has addressed your reply above me. Could you have look at whether all of your comments are addressed or not? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy now. Move the link to Slovaks up to "poor Slovaks", but no reason not to support. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your review! I've done as you suggested. buidhe 08:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vanamonde93[edit]

Not really in my wheelhouse, but happy to give this a read. Feel free to revert any copy-editing I do.

  • I find the first sentence difficult to parse; there's a lot thrown in there. Could you break it up?
    • Done
  • "Aryanization" may have been linked, but is a concept crucial enough to the article that I wonder if a one-sentence explanation in the lead is worthwhile.
    • Done
  • "Rioting began on 1 August" do we know where it began, and what the targets were?
    • Expanded on this
  • " Unusually, the Slovak State organized the deportation" why was this unusual?
    • Cichopek notes that the Slovak State was one of the only countries that organized the deportation rather than it being organized by German forces. However, it's not super relevant so I deleted it
  • The sentence beginning "Anti-regime forces" strikes me as out of place
    • I think it's relevant because these are the partisans which are causing the rioting
      • I could have been clearer; it belongs in the article, but feels out of place where it is. Perhaps it could be moved to just after "sparking the Slovak National Uprising".
  • "between Jews and Slovaks" but the Jews were Slovaks too, in many cases, were they not? you've used "non-Jewish SLovaks" in the lead
    • Done
  • The distinction between "background" and "leadup" isn't very clear to me at the moment; certainly there's material about broad post-war phenomena in both sections.
    • I separated them because the leadup is the events that RS say led directly to this particular outbreak of violence, rather than the causes of Postwar anti-Jewish violence in Slovakia more generally.
      • Hmm...In that case I'd suggest retitling it "proximate causes" or some such, but that's a suggestion only.
  • The second paragraph of "lead up" may benefit from a slight chronological reorganization.
    • I found it more helpful to separate incitement from physical attacks.
  • "soldiers, officers, and civilians" soldiers of the Czechoslovak army? If so, might be worth specifying.
    • Presumably but the source doesn't say so explicitly, so want to avoid OR.
  • There's many uses of "reportedly" in the article; and it's often not clear whether you mean media reports, or intelligence reports, or whether the sources themselves don't know. If it's the latter there's not much to be done, but if the former, some clarification may be helpful.
    • Usually these are police reports, which are presumably written from eyewitness testimony and are the main source of info cited in the papers.
  • "Other Jews were beaten or stabbed in the streets" it isn't obvious whether this is still in Nové Zámky
    • Clarified
  • Thanks for your comments! buidhe 01:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you link restitution, or some more specific term? It's not everyday vocabulary outside academia and law, I don't think.
    • Done
  • "non-Communist Democratic Party" why is this adjective here? I don't see it used elsewhere...is there reason to think the Democratic party would be communist?
  • This brings me to another point; I think it is helpful, whenever a political party is introduced, to have a descriptor of their ideology there, too; otherwise they're just names. I'd suggest whatever descriptor is most frequently used by the sources.
    • After 1945 there were only two legal political political parties in Slovakia: the Democratic Party and the Communist Party. So most sources describe the former as a "non-Communist party" since it contained all legal non-Communist politics.
  • "published an article on the events on 11 August" implication that the riots took place on 11 August, which as far as I can tell isn't what you mean
    • Fixed

That wraps it up from me; happy to support, as none of the rest of the comments are deal breakers. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much appreciated! buidhe 22:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Mlynárik needs a page range. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gog the Mild: Thanks for the review! Unfortunately I do not have a copy of the book but used this RS website, which has an excerpt of it. It should be verifiable either to the website or the book as it is a pretty short chapter. buidhe 19:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I checked the link. Ho, hum.

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2020 (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) 08:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Alfred Worden[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk)

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

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I think it meets the criteria. Al Worden, the Apollo 15 astronaut, recently passed away, and I'd like to continue my Apollo 15 work (regrettably this didn't get done before he died) by taking this to FAC.Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

  • When talking about a West Point graduate, we normally give their class rank. (Worden was 47th in the class of 1955 Cullum, George W. (1960). Biographical Register of the Officers and Graduates of the US Military Academy at West Point New York Since Its Establishment in 1802: Supplement Volume X 1950–1960. West Point, NY: West Point Alumni Foundation. p. 638.
That is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know who appointed him? He must have had good connections. Hmmm how strange. Woden credits Chuck Chamberlain butr he wasn't the local Congressman then. He must have been appointed by William W. Blackney.
I checked Congressional ProQuest for some document from the early 50s that might list appointees but didn't see any. I'll check newspaper sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These sentences seem jumbled: "After successfully completing the course at Farnborough, Worden served as an instructor at the Aerospace Research Pilot School (ARPS), from which he graduated in September 1965.[1][17] Worden had finished second in his class at Farnborough, and he was ordered to ARPS at the specific request of its commandant, Chuck Yeager."
Information merged.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chief Astronaut Alan Shepard on October 3, 1966 assigned Worden and four other Group 5 selectees, including Ken Mattingly, Jack Swigert and Ronald Evans, to the astronaut team dealing with the Block II command module, headed by Pete Conrad." Poor Vance Brand, passed over again. Anyway, you haven't linked Command module yet. (Provide the abbreviation CM here too.) You might also consider saying what is meant by Block II.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could add that the astronauts got a special deal on corvettes. Too bad we cannot use this image. You might mention that Al Worden's corvette is now in a museum. [72] A pity there aren't any Wikipedians in the US to take a photo of it. ("making them less conspicuous" hahaha - everyone knew someone roaring about in a corvette was an astronaut. The local civil and military police understood that speed limits did not apply to astronauts.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have emailed the museum and asked whether they would consider donating an image. I do not plan to be visiting Bowling Green, Kentucky anytime soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped a footnote about Rathmann. I think we can skip the museum bit in text.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7, FYI I've corresponded with the owner and we now have an excellent image of Worden's car, along with Scott's, here. He has met a number of the Apollo astronauts and I'm working on more images.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow! That is awesome! And you got David Scott's car too! Amazing! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the pause, he remained on the support crew for the second Apollo mission, testing of the CM and Lunar Module (LM) in Earth orbit.[29][30] This second mission would be Apollo 8, intended to be an Earth-orbit test of the full Apollo spacecraft, including the LM, in Earth orbit." Again, you seem to be repeating yourself a bit. Suggest merging the first sentence with the second, as the first sentence of its paragraph.
I don't see a merge, but I played with the language a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link S-IVB. You could even consider telling the reader what it was.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He retired from NASA and the Air Force in 1975. ... After retirement from the Air Force as a colonel and from NASA in 1975," Consider cutting back on the redundancy. The bit about his rank best belongs in the former paragraph.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Not an astro buff by any means, but I thought I'd see what I could see. Nice job thus far, I have a few comments/suggestions:

  • You could consider "Colonel Alfred Merrill "Al" Worden' USAF (February 7, 1932 – March 18, 2020) was...", which I think is still MOS-compliant, more elegant, and avoids using the "Col" abbreviation which seems jargony for a first sentence
We don't seem to have a consistent style for this, so what you say is as good as any.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "his selection as a NASA Group 5 astronaut" as NASA is used later but has not been introduced or linked
Done slightly differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "human being to travel the furthest from another human being"
Done a bit differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "and as of 2020 remains the one"
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Awqards in the infobox, I think the NASA Distinguished Service Medal should be in full and linked, not just an icon
I've done that. Please check to make sure it's what you intended.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His family was strapped for funds" seems a little colloquial
Changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "the propeller-driven Beechcraft T-34 trainer" or "the propeller-driven T-34 Mentor trainer"
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Lockheed T-33 jet trainer"
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • what sort of aircraft was the 95th Fighter Interceptor Squadron flying when Worden was there?
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "at the University of Michigan, which was approved. He gained the assignment."
Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "After successfully completing the course at Farnborough, second in his class, he returned to the U.S." then "Worden served..."
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Apollo program in "many hoped-for Apollo"
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link North American Aviation
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Apollo 12 prime crew. led by Pete Conrad" replace the full stop with a comma
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the CAPCOM link is targeted on a video game developer. Probably best to provide this in full as well?
I don't see any reason to spell out "capsule communicator". I've corrected the pipe.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link panoramic camera
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link spectrometer
I piped to Alpha-particle spectroscopy as more specific.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Volcanism#Volcanism on other bodies
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmost isolated human being
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • should it be "Trans-Earth Injection" or "trans-Earth injection"?
Standardized per our articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link splashdown
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "by the amphibious assault ship USS Okinawa"
Inserted.--Wehwalt (talk)
  • suggest "LM Falcon remained"
Cut.--Wehwalt (talk)
  • "on the lunar surface"
Included.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • should it be "trans-Earth coast"
Yes, changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "approved by Deke Slayton"
Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Slayton learned from Scott and Worden that the covers that had been flown had been unauthorized", but some were authorised by Slayton, as previously mentioned?
Modified.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the link for "Ed Mitchell" goes to a British TV presenter, and once that is fixed, drop the later link to Edgar Mitchell
Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there information available about the dates of his promotions up to colonel?
Not with certainty. He was a captain when selected as an astronaut, and a major when he traveled in space. My copy of the August 3, 1972 Senate committee transcript says he was a lieutenant colonel, which means he must have gotten his final promotion after being reprimanded. I'd like to keep out of the whole question unless I find something really authoritative on the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Northwood University for Northwood Institute
  • link Republican Party (United States)
  • link Goodrich Corporation
  • link Los Angeles Times
Four links inserted.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "with the goal of using film to inspire the next generation to go to Mars"
Done, more or less as suggested.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest a note about the "The Long Gray Line" being a reference to West Point graduates, and I suggest Gray instead of Grey, but I suppose you've got to go with the source
This also seems to be an allusion to West Point's "Alma Mater" song. I'm concerned about saying something that does not capture the nuance of what Aldrin meant.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • some footnotes have p. or pp. others don't. Suggest consistently using p./pp., same in Sources
My copies of Worden's book and Slayton's are Kindle format.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't you use |at= or |loc= per WP:REFPAGE? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I use loc. If there's a better way of doing it, I'm open to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quite, my apologies. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are a few duplicate links, including USAF in the lead, and Aerospace engineering, U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School, Kennedy Space Center (move KSC to first mention and use KSC thereafter), Lunar Roving Vehicle, and George Low in the body
I've gotten rid of the ones on aerospace engineering, KSC and LRV. The others seem justified either due to distance or the fact that one is a pipe or acronym.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know enough about the sources to do a source review, unfortunately

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's done, I think. Thank you for the most thorough review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A pleasure, great work on this. Hope to see it at FAC shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. I have a few comments/suggestions (apologies for any double-ups with the above reviews): AustralianRupert (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • he participated in cross country running, gymnastics and as a cheerleader --> "he participated in cross country running, gymnastics and cheerleading"?
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • benefit the Air Force, Worden in 1961 asked to be sent to study Worden in 1961 --> "benefit the Air Force, in 1961 Worden asked to study..."?
Got that I think.
  • Focused on his job in the Air Force, Worden took --> "Focused his Air Force career, Worden took..."?
Saying you are focused on a career can be interpreted negatively so I've changed "job" to "responsibilities".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • found hard to accept the fact that --> "found it hard to accept that"?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the pause in the program for the complete safety review that followed, Worden spent --> During the safety review that followed, Worden spent"?
Done more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • to lunar orbit without a LM --> "an LM"?
Hm. The classic NASA pronunciation was "Lem" (it was originally called the "Lunar Excursion Module" while on the drawing boards). But does the reader know that?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I can live with it -- I probably should have remembered it from the movies. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk)
  • suggest splitting this: As Apollo 12's backup command module pilot, Worden forged a close, lifelong friendship with the prime crew's CMP, Dick Gordon, with whom he trained, "Dick...
I don't see why. It seems fairly average in sentence length.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is where the comma splits the quote for me. I would suggest putting a full stop after "trained" and then introducing the quote, for instance: "...with whom he trained. Worden later wrote, "Dick was my buddy. We flew together and worked together for a year and a half when he was training for Apollo 12 and I was his backup. We just went everywhere together. We worked really hard but it was also a lot of fun". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Military service section: aerospace engineering is overlinked, as is U.S> Air Force Test Pilot School
  • Kennedy Space Center is overlinked in the Apollo 15 section -- probably could just use "KSC" at this point as you have already introduced the abbreviation
  • Lunar Roving Vehicle is overlinked in the Return sub section
  • George Low is overlinked in the Covers incident sub section
Overlinks were caught above, see explanation there.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the sources, suggest removing the self pointing authorlink for Al Worden to this article
All done, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, gone through these and did a couple I missed, plus the follow-up.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looks good -- added my support above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Images captioned "The Corvettes owned by Worden..." and "Worden in 2019" should be moved up slightly, they are impeding on the next section in violation of MOS:IMAGELOC.
  • All images are free. buidhe 18:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done that. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • fn 1 NASA is a publisher, not a website (dies it need linking?)
  • fn 6 Boy Scouts of America is a publisher, not a website
  • fn 11 New York Times is not linked here, but is on fn 24 and 43
  • fn 21 Of New York Times is linked, why isn't The Space Review?
  • fn 33 page numbers?
We're using the online page. Mostly to ensure we've sourced anything we say about the fire.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 38 access date?
  • fn 49 publisher?
  • fn 58 page numbers?
Similar response as to #33. Can you suggest satisfactory formatting?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 65 location?
  • fn 66 contrast with fn 21
  • fn 67 access date?
  • fn 68 is a 404
  • fn 92 should Boca Raton News be linked?
  • fn 99 page number?
Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All sources look fine. Spot checks down on fn 37, 43, 48, 69, 84 and 112

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've got everything except as noted. Thank you for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2020 (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 Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Hel[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Piotrus (talk)

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

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it passed GA recently, is relatively short but I believe comprehensive, well written and referenced. Please let me know what could be further improved. TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Hey Piotrus, I'm happy to see you nominating this article. Before I'll start I just wanna say the lead needs to summerise the whole article (the "Prelude", the "Aftermath" and the most important information about the battle need to be added in short and not too detailed) - see WP:LEAD. This is my responsibility because I didn't realise this was a thing here in Wikipedia before I passed the GAN, my apology. I'll continue after you solved this issue. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: I've expanded the lead a bit. Is it sufficient? I don't see anything else right now that doesn't seem like undue detail for the lead, but I am open to suggestions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I don't really have the time to continue this. 'Cause of our lockdown, school and real life issues I won't be that much online for a week or longer. :/ Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe in 2019 MILHIST decided to scrap the rule of capitalising campaigns even if it is part of the proper noun. Look at these links if you have some time to read [73] and [74]. The article of the September campaign does not capitalise it.
  • If we are not sure what kinda guns we are talking about then I rather not link them to any guns.
  • sixty two machine guns Are these figures meant to be 60 2 or 62? If the is the later one then we need a hyphen between the two figures if not then change the two into a 2?
  • Rear Admiral is overlinked.
  • The second air raid, the same day at 18:00 I think we need an "at" before the second "the".
  • damaging the Polish light minelayer Mewa Add "ORP" before her mention. Same with the rest of the ships.
  • On 3 September 1939, the Polish destroyer Wicher Remove the year and the month and make the day an ordinal and add an article before the date.
  • engagement of the September Campaign --> "engagement of the September campaign"
  • operational in the theater.[12][5]c re-order the refs here.
  • Link German Army.
    • Done.
  • On the night of 12–13 September 1939 --> "On the night of 12/13 September 1939"
    • Done. How about '12 to 13'?
  • Baltic Sea is overlinked.
    • Done.
  • the Hel Peninsula by 2 October 1939 Year is not needed.
    • Done.
  • v After Hel's surrender Typo v?
    • Fixed.
  • D note needs a citation?
    • The first sentence ("It is unclear whether these estimates...") is my editorializing, hopefully, allowed. The problem is that it is unclear if the casualties count the sailors. The issue is just not addressed, nobody presents at able breakdown, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceasefire orders were issued Per Ngram.
  • I'd better not to move the article to "ceasefire", 'cause, cease-fire is declining in Ngram and ceasefire took the spot. However right now the numbers are almost the same but it's possible that cease-fire has declined more in recent years.

I think that's it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

abbreviated and should stay like that shouldn't have a hyphen.

  • and outnumbered by about 10 to 1 Maybe change these to ten and one?
  • week of September, the German Army German Army is a MOS:EGG.

@Piotrus: The rest looks pretty good. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: All done, I hope. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G'day CPA-5 this looks GTG, but I wondered if you were happy with the responses and wanted to add your support for completeness? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my way sir PM. I've made some small edits here. It now looks good to go. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Buidhe
  • Short and choppy paragraphs throughout—could I persuade you to combine some of them?
  • These sources look really dodgy: [75] and [76] buidhe 05:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding combining sentences I'll ping User:Nihil novi, who may catch what I didn't, through I think he already did c/e of this article previously. Regarding the Facta Nautica, I'll ping User:Nigel Ish, who wrote about SMS M85 and who may have access to better sources to replace this, if this is indeed deemed unreliable. Regarding the last, I was simply unable to find any more reliable source for the uncontroversial, I think, statement, that some of the former fortifications still survive. It is a tourist website, and I think it can be considered acceptable for such a simple statement. All other sources on this are similar, ex. [77] (article on Internet portal onet.pl that dabbles in mid-quality journalism), or [78] (ditto on interia.pl). Think they are better? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: Don't wanna disturb this but I should note the first source was made by Piotr Mierzejewski who has a degree on paleobiology - see this. Why he made this I have no idea this is nothing about his job. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the Facta_Nautica cite with one from Haarr, which has the advantage of already being used in the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe, Was this an ACR-level source review? And if so, what is your view on the changes? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a formal source review, or I would have marked it as such. buidhe 16:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

  • The map and the image of the AA gun create a MOS:SANDWICH. Perhaps drop the latter down a little.
  • Consider adding a location map, so a reader can locate Hel within modern Poland. You could cut and paste the one from Hel, Poland.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Good ideas, but 1) I am afraid it will sandwitch something else, I'd appreciate if you or someone else would move it to the best position and 2) I tried copying the code and it didn't work, and I couldn't find an example of a milhist tempalte with such a feature to copy the code. Help, anyone? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't either. Ah well, it was just a thought. Passing. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It can be done with any infobox apparently, as with Hel, Poland, but only if both are push pin maps. Ah well. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It took a while but map has been added :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

I have done a little copy editing. Flag up anything you are not happy with.

  • Could we avoid having "battle" twice in the first ten words.
  • "comprised one battery of 4 152-mm (6.0-inch) guns, two older batteries of 2 105-mm (4.1-inch) guns, and three batteries of 8 75-mm (3.0-inch) guns The 2nd Naval Anti-aircraft Artillery Division [pl]'s anti-aircraft batteries were equipped with 6 75-mm and 8 40-mm (1.6-inch) guns, 17 machine guns,[2] and two 120-cm (47-inch) searchlights" Could you be consistent with numbers: when giving the numbers of weapons etc, either all should be spelt out - "Two" = or all given in figures - "4".
  • "The Coastal Artillery Division was 162 soldiers strong" Is that true? Or do you mean the detachment of it at Hel?
  • In the second paragraph pf "Battle" you state "with only three light minelayers remaining operational in the theater". In the fourth you list five; they were only reduced to three on 13 September.
  • "About 3,600 Polish soldiers were taken prisoner." Should that be 'soldiers and sailors'?

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Sorry for missing this. As far as I can tell, despite the name 'division', the Coastal Artillery Division was composed only of the elements stationed at Hel, and the source states it had 162 personnel. Godo catch about the three light minelayers; I chanted it to several light units as I think some support units might also have been operational at that time. Other issues should be all fixed. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem.
That all looks good.
Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Zawed[edit]

  • Suggest amending the first sentence of the lead: "The Battle of Hel was an engagement of World War II ...fought from 1 September to 2 October 1939
  • The Invasion of Poland is linked twice (as pipe links) in the lead
  • "defended the Area from 1 September to 2 October 1939," : the length of the engagement is already stated in the first sentence of the lead. Suggest replacing this phrasing with the number of days, i.e "...defended the Area for 32 days,..."
  • In the prelude section, write out the smaller numbers, i.e ten or less? E.g. "comprised a single battery of four 152-mm (6.0-inch) guns,..."
  • Prelude: "Coastal Artillery Division [pl]'s"; suggest moving the [pl] to after the possessive, same for 2nd Naval Anti-aircraft Artillery Division
  • Prelude: Given the number of times it appears, perhaps consider introducing an abbreviation for Hel Fortified Area, e.g. HFA
  • Prelude: "...was 162 soldiers strong..." Strong is repeated in the following section of this sentence, suggest rephrasing at least the second mention, e.g. "...the 2nd Naval Anti-aircraft Artillery Division numbered 1,000 soldiers while..."
  • Prelude: "...the numerous German battleships." Is it overstating to refer to "numerous"? Nazi Germany only had a handful of battleships. I wonder if you mean that the coastal batteries posed no real threat to modern well-armoured ships?
  • Battle: Suggest combining the first two sentences and refer to the "opening day of the invasion" so that "first" is only used in respect of the "first air raid". And link invasion to Invasion of Poland.
  • Battle: "...of the September Campaign... The context of the term September Campaign is unclear. Maybe just refer to German invasion?
  • Battle: "A number of air raids targeted the Area;..." I suggest moving cites 6 and 7 to the end of the sentence rather than trying to put them right next to the casualty figures.
  • Battle: The cites in the paragraph discussing Commager can be consolidated, i.e. just one at the end. The same applies to the following paragraph discussing Komorowski's work. As an aside I like the way you contrasted the different accounts.
  • Aftermath: Suggest "3,600 Polish soldiers and sailors..." The battle section mentioned the crew of sunken vessels joining the initial 2,800 strong garrison so I assume the increase in numbers is due to the sailors. The refs in the first paragraph can be consolidated to the end as well.
  • Suggest combining some of the separate paragraphs in the aftermath section. Given their content, 1st and 2nd paras could be combined and also 4th and 5th paras combined as well.

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, just checking you've seen my comments? Zawed (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zawed I missed it, thanks for the ping. Mostly done; I don't know how to fix the code in the Template:Ill to produce the results you want (" moving the [pl] to after the possessive"). Please let me know if anything remains to be addressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to be too fussed over the possessive. Happy to support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Parsecboy[edit]

  • Remove the unnecessary .0 from several of the conversions
  • "six 75-mm and eight 40-mm (1.6-inch) guns, 17 machine guns" -> "six 75-mm and eight 40-mm (1.6-inch) guns, seventeen machine guns" per the MoS
  • Ditto for "(four 75-mm, and six 37-mm), 62 machine guns"
  • Why do we have an in-depth order of battle for the Polish garrison but not for the German force? This is a serious scope/balance issue
  • "were engaged by two German destroyers" - passive voice
  • "as well as the Polish light minelayer Mewa" - we've already been introduced to what Mewa was and who operated the vessel
  • link gunboat, armored train
  • "targeted the Area" - why is this capitalized?
  • Move the link for capitulation to the first use of the term
  • "After Hel's capitulation...which capitulated after..." - capitulation twice in the same (overly long) sentence is repetitious. Switch one of them and split the sentence
  • Why do we have inconsistent citation styles? Some give page ranges in the footnote, and others use the abominable "[fn]:page number" format
  • Many sources lack complete citations; for example, Boje Polskie 1939–1945 has no author, location of publication, or year. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments! I fixed all that were explicitly mentioned and that I understood (passive voice is a statement of fact...). Except: OOB - there are just no sources on the German one, at least I wasn't able to locate any. Area refers to the Hel Fortified Area, hence the capitalization. Please let me know what issues remain. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Active voice is generally preferred - an engagement is a mutual affair, so one could just as easily say the Polish vessels engaged the German ones. As for the area, yes, but just as one would refer to the Vistula River, if one simply says "he crossed the river", even if specifically referring to the Vistula, it would be lowercase. Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: Roger, fixes made. How does it look now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here
Looks good. Most of the refs still need work; almost all of them still need locations, Derdej's book also needs an ISBN, and I noticed that some ISBNs are hyphenated and others aren't - if you're taking this to FAC at some point in the future, you'll want to standardize the formatting. Parsecboy (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: I've added ISBN/location to Derdej book. Do you want me to add locations to other books? I think this is a totally useless piece of metadata... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the purpose of identifying a source, yes, I agree that it's useless, but it's standard practice to include it in per any of the various citation style guides. Parsecboy (talk) 10:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: Food for thought: Publisher locations are no longer included in APA Style references for books and book chapters. I doubt anyone will miss them, even the cited (official?) APA blog is rather clear on that :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - either way, you should standardize one way or the other. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: Done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to nitpick you to death (but hopefully it'll prevent someone else from doing it at FAC!) but you've got some US states spelled out and others abbreviated (for example: Boston, MA vs. Annapolis Maryland). Parsecboy (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: Might as well. Thanks :) Done.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It occurred to me to check the articles on Schleswig-Holstein and Schlesien, and the dates I have there don't exactly jive with the ones here - according to Schleswig-Holstein's article, that ship was present for bombardments of Hel and Redłowo between 7 and 13 September and then again from 25 to 27 September. And Schlesien's article has her only joining bombardment operations against Hel from 21 to 27 September. These details are sourced to Jurgen Rohwer's excellent Chronology of the War at Sea and Hildebrand et. al.'s Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe, both of whom I'd trust with the minute details of what ships were where and when far more than I'd trust a general history of the war like Commager. Parsecboy (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: Nice finds, I've expanded the article a bit using the sources. The only problem is the ambiguity (Hel and Redłowo, Hel and Jastarnia) since each account conflates two different locations in a single timeframe. Granted, they are not far from one another if you look at the map (in fact Jastarnia is on Hel Pennisula), but I think Redlowo refers to the Battle of Kępa Oksywska or Battle of Gdynia. Frankly, the locations are so close I kind of wonder what the ships were doing if they were not there, or really, if they weren't shelling all those locations during the same days... -Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They would have had to withdraw to refuel and replenish ammunition, and I imagine while off the coast, they were firing at whatever targets observers called in (I don't know what process the Germans used, but during bombardments in the Pacific, US battleships frequently used spotter aircraft to locate targets, observe the fall of shot, and send corrections to the gunners). But I doubt we're going to find a lot more detail than what we already have. I think we're in pretty good shape now. Nice work. Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • can you provide a translation of Boje Polskie 1939–1945. Przewodnik Encyklopedyczny and Westerplatte, Oksywie, Hel 1939?
  • can you be consistent with the hyphenation of the isbns?
  • what makes www.naszbaltyk.com reliable?
  • where you have multiple authors, can you add |last-author-amp=yes to put a & between the last two authors?
  • fn 11 should start with the author name, not "(in Polish)"
  • the other sources seem fine, although I do not know much at all about Polish publishing houses.

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Peacemaker67: All done (there is nothing to translate in Westerplatte, Oksywie, Hel 1939, this title is just place names and dates). I've added one more ref to back up NaszBaltyk. NB calls itself an online sea-themed magazine, published since 2012, has an ISSN number, is legally registered in Poland as a magazine, and its editorial team is non-anonymous ([79]), so I think it can be seen as RS for non-REDFLAG claims anyway. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:20, 2 June 2020 (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 Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Lipari Islands[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Battle of the Lipari Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Several years into the First Punic War the Romans realised that they needed to challenge Carthage at sea and built a fleet. This is an account of its first encounter. Which was a complete disaster. Every ship in the squadron and its commander was captured. Only notable as the first naval clash of a very long war that was decided at sea. I brought this up to C class - it failed B class assessment, back in the day - and recently GA. I think that it meets the A class criteria; see what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review–pass[edit]

I have reviewed the sources and can find no issues. (I did correct one of the author's names based on prior comments). No source checks done. buidhe 23:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments[edit]

As with other articles in this series, I question the relevance of the "Sources" section as it is not directly relevant to the subject. buidhe 23:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe and many thanks for yet again picking up the sources review. I appreciate it. I am relatively neutral regarding this. I have a mild preference to leave "Sources" in, but would be happy to delete the whole section. Except other reviewers would almost certainly object. When my first First Punic War article, Battle of Cape Ecnomus, got to GAN it attracted "Given that any modern account largely relies on Polybius, I would strongly suggest also adding explicit references to his work."
How would you feel if I were to cut it right down and made it a brief sub-section of "Background"? I have no intention of taking this one to FAC - there is not enough material in the primary sources - so it may not be such a touchy issue. And we then see what other reviewers think?
Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to including something about Polybius, the current section just seems a bit disproportionate given that it isn't directly related to the article subject. buidhe 18:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

  • All images are free + correctly used, with appropriate sources. buidhe 18:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have some comments:

  • suggest "The Romans went on to win the following two, larger, naval encounters"→"The Romans went on to win the two larger naval encounters that followed"
Done.
  • As I have mentioned elsewhere where it has been inserted, I am fully in support of the Primary sources section on the basis of Polybius' critical importance to accounts of the battle, and the section's role as important background
  • link Ancient Carthage in "between Carthaginian" and drop later link
Done.
  • suggest more closely targeting by changing the link to Greek language to Ancient Greek
Done.
  • link Sicily for Sicilian
Done.
  • link city-state
Done.
  • suggest "able to carry embarked legionaries as marines" and drop later link to Roman legion
You have lost me. I can't find this phrase in the article, nor more than one reference to ligion(aries).
  • move to the link to consul to first mention
Done.
  • the link to Messana is actually a redirect duplink of the first one to Messina
Oops. Removed.
  • for Lipari Islands pipelink Aeolian Islands
Done.
  • "pejorative cognomen Asina, which means donkey in Latin." swap the italics to the foreign term
Done.
  • is there an article for the following skirmish where Hannibal Gisco lost most of his ships?
No.
  • suggest "Later in the same year, Scipio's fellow consul, Gaius Duilius"
Done.
  • author-link Nigel Bagnall, Lionel Casson, William V. Harris, Fik Meijer, Richard Miles (historian), Jeffrey Royal, Sebastiano Tusa, Peter Jones (classicist) and Brian Herbert Warmington
Done.

That's all I could find, nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Peacemaker, all done. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I edited the article to reflect what I meant above (where I wasn't clear). Rv if needed. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • the year Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio in Lipara harbour Isn't harbour part of the proper noun?
Fair point. Fixed.
  • on several, now-lost, Greek and Latin sources Unlink Latin and maybe add "Old" before "Greek".
Latin unlinked. Greek is already linked to Ancient Greek.
In what way? You click on "Greek" and get an article on a variant of the Greek language. Even in the worst case (which I do not believe applies here) it meets "If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them somewhere that makes sense."
  • a Greek sent to Rome in 167 BC as a hostage Rome is too common to link.
Unlinked.
  • sides wished to control Syracuse, the most powerful city-state on Sicily If I look at the map next to this sentence; I see there is only one city-state on the island?
There is only one shown on the map with separate territory. Messana was a city state. A number of others were in Carthage or Syracuse's sphere of influence. Lipara was a city state.
  • around 100 long tons (110 short tons; 100 tonnes) Link tonnes.
Done.
  • that the garrison of Lipara was willing Add island here.
Why? I am referring to the city of Lipara, not the Lipari islands.
  • Ohhh add city then instead of island.
Done. Although the next sentence already says "Lipara was the main port of the Lipari Islands ..."
  • fled inland and the consul himself --> "fled inland and the Consul himself"?
Done.
  • captured, most with little damage.[44][45][43] Re-order the refs.
Done.
  • corvus was a bridge 1.2 metres (4 ft) wide and 11 metres (36 ft) long --> "corvus was a bridge 1.2 m (4 ft) wide and 11 m (36 ft) long".
Done.
  • The term Punic comes from the Latin word Punicus Unlink Latin in note a.
Done.
  • the Lipari islands, also known as the Aeolian Islands I don't believe the Aeolian Islands if it's already linked by the Libari islands' link.
Unlinked.
  • A quinquereme carried a crew of 300 No colon here?
Nope.
  • but lost most of his ships.[48][47] Re-order the refs here.
Done.
  • As the first ever Roman warships Shouldn't "firs ever" have a hyphen?
Added.
  • little more than a skirmish, and is mostly notable as the first naval encounter --> " little more than a skirmish, and is most notable as the first naval encounter"?
Done.
Hi CPA-5 and thanks for your usual sterling job. All of your points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added some more comments here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CPA-5: and back . Gog the Mild (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I think it meets the A-class requirements. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hawkeye7[edit]

  • In 264 BC the states of Carthage and Rome went to war, starting the First Punic War. This reads awkwardly. Suggest: "The First Punic War between Carthage and Rome broke out in 264 BC."
Good thinking. Done.
  • It was the long-standing Roman procedure to appoint two men each year, known as consuls Consuls were not appointed; suggest changing "appoint" to "elect".
Done.
  • Consider moving the last paragraph of Ships into the next section.
Done.
  • the Consul himself was taken prisoner De-captitalise "consul"
Done.
  • The battle was little more than a skirmish, and is most notable as the first naval encounter of the Punic Wars and the first time Roman warships had engaged in battle. Suggest changing "and" to "but" and dropping "most": "The battle was little more than a skirmish, but is notable as the first naval encounter of the Punic Wars and the first time Roman warships had engaged in battle." This should be in the lead as well.
Done.
  • This allowed marines to board enemy ships and capture them, rather than employing the previously traditional tactic of ramming. Except that in the Ships section you said: In the century prior to the Punic Wars, boarding had become increasingly common and ramming had declined. (Also: drop "previously")
Good point. I am trying to have it both ways, aren't I? I have changed it to "This allowed marines to more easily board enemy ships and capture them.
  • Suggest splitting the second last paragraph after fn 33
Done.
All in all, a fine article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hawkeye and thanks for the review. All of your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2020 (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 Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

First Punic War[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

First Punic War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

With three naval battles from the First Punic War at or on their way towards FA it seemed a good idea to tidy up the main article. I mean, how difficult could it be? Ha! Very, was the answer. But I now present, fresh from GAN, 23 years of war boiled down into 6,000 words. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; too long[edit]

Like last time, I want others (ie Readers/Users) to benefit from your work. This is an encyclopaedia; if we don't make it easy for our audience, they'll go elsewhere. I do this kind of thing for a living, and I know how hard it is to leave out detail interesting to me, but not useful, or helpful, for my audience .

Key principles; bitesize (shorter is better, whether the article itself, sentences, paras etc), engage early (ie if the opening isn't grabbing, you lose people).

Agreed; all other things being equal a shorter statement is better than a long one. I have something similar on my user page. ("Could I put it more shortly?" You may recognise the source.) Other things are not equal, or all Wikipedia articles would consist of just the Short description. "First war between Rome and Carthage, 264-241 BCE" in this case.

General; (1) too wordy throughout eg "The accuracy of Polybius's account has been much debated over the past 150 years, but the modern consensus is to accept it largely at face value, and the details of the battle in modern sources are almost entirely based on interpretations of Polybius's account." ie There's been debate, but most modern accounts consider him a reliable source. Bang.

It is my view that reducing an article to a series of bullet points means that is unlikely to meet the A class criteria to be written in articulate English and to have clear prose. Of course YMMV and/or I may be wrong.

(2) Paragraphs need to be chunked; four lines max.

I disagree. A paragraph should be as long as it needs to be to cover the area under discussion. One may argue that any given sentence within a paragraph is unnecessary or is too wordy (or not "wordy " enough) but to artificially limit paragraphs to four lines or less seems to me to be a recipe for incoherence.

Specific Lead; waaaaaaay too long; as a user, I should be able to quickly read and understand what its all about. Too many numbers; I've rewritten it to show what I mean. Or look at my rewritten War of the Spanish Succession - which covers a war far more more complex, in less than this.

"as a user, I should be able to quickly read and understand what its all about." In which case I commend to you the 9 word short description or the 82 word first paragraph. Your rewritten lead would, IMO, fail to meet the A class criterion "a concise lead section that summarizes the topic" as one of the ways in which it achieves brevity is by saying nothing at all about military events between 255 and 241 BC,

Sources; this should be at the end (again, most people don't care and you lose them)

There are more, but we both spent a lot of effort going back and forth on Cape Wotsit; I even did some work myself, and it pretty much ended in the same place. So no biggie, I know many editors think the more content the better, but I'm fine with a 'Yeah, ok'. I'm not sure who your audience is; if you are, and this is what they want, then you don't need to persuade me :)

I recently had Mercenary War, from the same period, go through FAC; it covers a five year war in 3,450 words. This article has 5,787 for a 23-year-long war. I do not consider either excessive. I have, so far, put four battles from this war through FAC - each lasted less than a day. They had 3,654, 3,344, 3,090 and 2,779 words. I was more than pleased to summarise the entire war in fewer words than the two shortest descriptions of individual battle.

14:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

  • This was the longest war of the Roman Republic, it's okay to tell about in lengths. I personally think the article could be more detailed. Moreover there are 33,936 bytes of text, which is way below the limit of WP:TOOLONG for splitting an article and is within the acceptable range. I think your critic is misguided. I do agree that the lede has some problem though (see my comment below). T8612 (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase; I'm not bothered about the total length so much. It needs to be rebalanced; too long-winded in some areas, too short in others (eg general strategy and overview, ie why.)
If you are "not bothered about the total length so much", why is your summary "Oppose; too long"?
I’m going to put this here, but as I do so, let me clarify; I'm not seeking agreement, nor do I need to be told I’m wrong. After about three years of editing, I am genuinely still trying to figure out what Wikipedia is for. Is it (a) an opportunity for individuals to write articles on topics they find interesting, less bothered if anyone else does; or (b) an online encyclopedia, designed for general users.
How you answer that question is important; if (a), none of my points matter, so stop reading. If (b), they might do.
I am not inclined to get sucked into arguing a false dichotomy. What I am trying to do is write an encyclopedia article which meets the A class criteria. It is expected that comments against an individual nomination will focus on where the article nominated fails to meet the criteria. If an editor believes the criteria are at fault, eg by encouraging wordiness or discouraging punchiness, there are more appropriate venues to discuss this and to endeavour to have them changed; it is possible that I may even support you on some of these.
First, according to Wikipedia statistics, well over 70% of page views are via a mobile device; ergo, if you want to know how likely your article is to be read, look at it on a tablet, not a laptop. That means shorter, less threatening paragraphs,
Second, 60% of views only look as far as the Lead; which makes it the most important part of the article. The idea behind the four paragraphs rule is conciseness; so writing four really long paragraphs for the lead misses the point. This is not me being controversial; I’m quoting from the Wikipedia guidelines on Lead Para.
Third, if you want people to continue reading, it's a series of hooks; if I’m a general reader, I could care less about the Sources - why is it the first paragraph? It's inviting people to stop.
I fail to see either an actionable comment or anything which relates to the A class criteria; if I am being slow, apologies - that is sadly not uncommon.
I’ve only ever put forward one article for A-Class review, because I wanted to understand the process, and I've only recently started doing Bs. I don’t feel the need to persuade others – but if I want my articles reviewed, being part of a community requires me to provide the same courtesy. If I'm the only person who thinks this is a problem, then I'm happy to be ignored.Robinvp11 (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robinvp11 and apologies for taking so long to get back to you. My thoughts on your comments are above, Gog the Mild (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by CPA-5[edit]

Hmm, I know you have experience with these kinds of articles but this does not meet the criteria and I believe it is a little it further than it normally should be. Because it's a big article I understand there are a lot of things that should be addressed but there are some vague sentence in it and I believe we did not add all the information about the war in it like what were the roles of Corsica, Sardinia and Malta in the war. I believe these are the biggest issues to me but again because it's long we cannot add everything without someone else giving feedback.

Hi CPA-5: I have been aware that I have been struggling with this one and have asked a couple of people to chip in. I think that the finished article will be more than ever a true Wikipedian effort, where the whole community drags it up to standard. And yes, there is a lot of room for debate in an article like this as to what is too broad or too narrow. With no answer being obviously "right". I seem to have incorporated an even larger proportion of nonsense in this one than usual, and I very much appreciate the time and dedication you have devoted to picking it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox doesn't include important information like casualties, losses and add mercenaries here because it's important that they were a separate party here.
There is no information, even roughly, on total casualties. I could add "Heavy" to both. My preference would be not to, as I don't think that it conveys useful information. And Template:Infobox military conflict under casualties states "optional".
  • The lead doesn't mention the Corsica and Sardinia battles.
That was deliberate, but was a marginal call. Inserted. I would be grateful if you could check if you feel it is really necessary, as the lead is already long.
  • Publius Claudius Pulcher is an SIA.
Well he was ransomed after a couple of years and fought in the war for another 15 years, including serving as a consul again, so it seemed a bit misleading. I am happy to take advice on this.
  • Where's the commander of Syracuse in the infobox?
Good point. Added.
  • Which Hanno the Great are we talking about in the infobox?
Ah ha. Fixed. Also fixed in the infobox.
  • Don't understand why "Syracuse" isn't included as a Carthaginian ally in the infobox?
Cos Syracuse was a Carthaginian ally for 4 years; then a Roman ally for 19 years. So I could put Syracuse as an ally of both or of neither. The latter seemed the least confusing. And the fact that it played a pretty minor role, mostly logistic support, seems to support it. Happy to seek consensus.
  • I understand but personally it's a little bit misleading to not add it. Like a film I'd say it's a big plotwist to see that the Greeks became ally with the Romans.
I seems to me to be a very minor plot twist. Syracuse spent a year cooperating with the Carthaginians, then 22 years as allies of the Romans. I have added them as allies of the Romans in the infobox. (Although my preference would be not to.) I think that to also try and cram that they were allies of the Carthaginians into the info box would overload it. That's what articles are for, not infoboxes. From Template:Infobox military conflict: "combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional [emphasis in original] – the parties participating in the conflict.
  • No Malta as part of the locations?
I am considering it a set of Sicilian off shore islands like the Liparis or the Aegates. If I list Malta, which barely saw any fighting, then I certainly need to list them, possibly others and the list fills up with island groups.
  • Personally, Malta is more important than the other islands offshore Sicilia. Because Malta is a separate country and it even has it's own language which is unique. But it's fine to not include it was just curious why not.
I take your point, and Malta was important in more recent conflicts. But it wasn't in this one. The Lipari Islands for example were more important.
  • By its terms Carthage paid large reparations and Sicily was annexed as a Roman province Corsica and Sardinia aren't included here.
Correct. By the treaty their status was not affected, so they are not mentioned.
  • The end of the war sparked a major but unsuccessful revolt within the Carthaginian Empire Add mercenaries they have paid here.
20,000 of the rebels were foreign fighters from the Sicilian army, derogatorily termed "mercenaries" by the Romans, but 70,000 were subjugated Africans. So I have tried to avoid "mercenary" for PoV reasons. And I feel that concentrating on the 20% of the rebels who were foreign would be giving them undue weight; similarly the 70,000 rebellious Africans were not rebelling over pay.
  • the First Punic War is based on several, now lost, Greek and Latin sources Unlink Latin.
Done.
  • contrary to Polybius's account of all of the warships involved being quinqueremes.[23][19] Re-oder the refs.
Done
  • The Roman Republic had been aggressively expanding in southern Italy for a century Add mainland here.
Done.
  • conquered peninsular Italy south of the River Arno by 272 BC No need for an upper case in river.
I think that there is; it is a proper name.
  • So you're saying both River Arno and Arno River are correct?
Yes. In virtually all cases they are interchangeable. (Hey! Should I be invoicing you for English lessons? )
  • I wouldn't mind if you do. Learn everyday more about English. (Could you imagine that I never had English lessons at school nor never learnt it on language-learning platforms? :) )
Frankly, no, I can't. So where did you acquire your skill at English.
  • Well, it is a really long story you know. It started at secondary school where me and my friends talked a lot of films, games and YouTube back in the times and mostly they were in English however, it didn't really started before I joined Wikipedia in 2016 (damn that's almost 4 years ago). Back in the days I was more a copy-paster in ongoing conflicts' timelines. You may ask yourself "why didn't he work on the Dutch Wikipdia" and you're right, I indeed worked over there but I got embarrassed from my work back in the days. For instead back in the day I made and translated the South Yemen Civil War to Dutch (without sources and citations because I was stupid and didn't know MOS) which supprising still is there without sources or even being deleted. So back to being a copy-paster, at the time I was really assciocal 'cause I mean what you expect if think you're not a native speaker or someone who's an advanced speaker of that language? So I needed to learn I needed to talk and understand the language, the usages, the slangs, the natives and the rules. It later surprised me that I'm one of the few who tries and learn proper English without slangs or internet abbreviations, let's say I'm a little bit conversitive in language. I decided to watch a lot of films with English subtitles and even made some online friends outside Wikipedia who're from the English world. I even once met someone online who thought I was an American while they were from Britain and vice versa. Which is funny to think about because first of all I'm not good in English not back then nor in the present day. My embarrassing feeling is the reason why I never decided to write a proper article here well not until that long ago. Thus, I decided to review some ARCs back in April 2018 before that I never met MOS. So you guessed it, it was a disaster if I can be honest. And now a days I am watching YouTube some documantries in English. Let's summarise these; I learnt English on many ways by real life friends, internet friends, Wikipedia (even though it tools some times) and YouTube (watching now too much Conan). The only proplem I have in langues is word types ask me a half year ago what a proposition was and I'd probably wouldn't answer that question and it's not only in English, in Dutch it's the same story, somehow my brain doesn't want to understand what those words are and always will be problems. So that's how I learnt English without teachers.
That's impressive. But now you're getting advanced: I have no idea what a preposition is, except I think it is something you are not supposed to end a sentence with. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you don't know? Prepositions are on, in, with, near, by, along, to, chez, than, down, under, above and more. The one thing I've learnt from preposistions is you can end a sentence with the word "with" as long it's a question. Advanced is a big word in my opinion and I believe I'm far from advanced; let's say I'm a beginner in English and always believe in yourself and all your dreams will come true (that's how I got my driving licence not that long ago). ;)
  • No need to link North Africa.
Unlinked.
  • The two states had several times asserted their mutual friendship via formal alliances: in 509 BC, 348 BC and around 279 BC I don't understand why you add the years here without the reason why they become friends and broke the alliances a couple of times? Had they the same enemies?
They made/reaffirmed/renegotiated the original treaty twice. After 161 years they possibly felt that it would be a good idea to agree and confirm everything.
  • Pyrrhic War of 280–275 BC, against a king of Epirus who alternately fought Rome --> You mean the King of Epirus.
No. I could have said that - in that it would have made sense and been grammatically permissible - but I meant what I wrote.
  • In 288 BC, the Mamertines, a group of Italian mercenaries, previously hired by Syracuse, occupied the city of Messana (modern Messina) in the north-eastern tip of Sicily.[33]. Remove the full stop after the citation.
Done
  • At the same time, Roman troops revolted and seized control of Rhegium Against whom and why actually?
A fair question. But that, IMO, would be off the point of something which is already marginal, so I have taken it out.
  • However, many saw strategic and monetary advantages in gaining a foothold in Sicily Many who?
Romans. I could go with 'many Romans saw', but it seemed to me clear from context and I have used "Romans" in the previous sentence. Is it not to you?
  • No was just thinking at the time about generals, senators or other politician, not about Romans themselves.
Ah. I take your point. I have added "of them" to try and make it a little clearer.
  • The balance were equipped as heavy infantry, with body armour, a large shield, and short thrusting swords They were divided into three ranks Forgot full stop here.
Ha! Eagle eyes.
  • Many would be Numidians and Berbers from North Africa --> "Many would be Numidians, former neighbour Berber tribes and other Berbers from North Africa"
I think that I see your point, so I have removed "Numidians and Berbers".
  • troops who would charge ferociously, but had a reputation for breaking off if a combat was protracted.[45][43][note 4] Re-oder the refs here.
Done.
  • Two thousand slingers were recruited from the Balearic Islands.[46][43] Same as above.
Done.
  • partly made up of Ligurians, Celts and Iberians.[56][39] Re-oder the refs here.
Done.
  • Five months after the siege began, Hanno marched to Akragas's Which Hanno?
The one named in full and linked in the previous sentence.
  • westward to relieve the besieged city of Macella Wrong link.
Good point. Thank you. A bit of a mess. Removed the lot.
  • Hamilcar took advantage of this to launch a counterattack, taking one of the contingents American counterattack.
Fixed.
  • After a quarrel, the Roman troops and their allies set up separate camps Is this meant to be Syracusians if you mean in groups did the Romans had an extra ally which isn't mentioned in the article yet?
Their Latin allies mentioned as "An army was usually formed by combining a Roman legion with a similarly sized and equipped legion provided by their Latin allies" under Armies.
  • had usually relied on small squadrons provided by their allies Same as above.
Inserted 'Latin or Greek'.
  • Carthaginian vessels, and so slower and less manoeuvrable. [75] Remove extra space here.
Done.
  • a bridge 1.2 metres (4 ft) wide and 11 metres (36 ft) long We had a discussion about this before but maybe we can introduce those "old fogies" the symbols of metric units? I mean we could use this "a bridge 1.2 metres (m) (4 ft) wide and 11 m (36 ft) long"? And I believe we need an "of" here? Because in my opinion it's a little bit unnecessary, but I agree it should be mentioned once before same with other metric units.
I don't think that an "of" is needed.
I prefer to give the metric units in full. Is there a policy that they should be abbreviated? I note that elsewhere you have asked me to expand LT to long tons at every mention.
  • Well surprising there is. I thought it was just me but I found in MOS:UNITNAMES we only should use full short written units a "few" times and only once with long units.
Well found. Done: now, I think, in full on first mention and abbreviated on subsequent. Does this mean that elsewhere you only require me to give "long tons" in full on the first mention?
  • No, per WP:UNITSYMBOLS long tons shan't be abbreviated after first its mention. This also applies to short tons; MOS told me there is no abbreviations for both tons. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:UNITNAMES and WP:UNITSYMBOLS are just alternate names for the same policy. You can't have it both ways.
  • Whooops, another embarrassing moment. I think at the time I needed to go to sleep before knowing I was screwing this up. Anyway in the section "Specific units" both short and long tons should be written fully. Let's say they are one of those exceptions.
  • Maybe introduce the other rams too because you only used the triple set though there were more than one kinda ram.
CPA-5: my understanding is that the excavation and examination of the rams in anything so far published has been under the direction of Tulsa and/or Royal. Their overview - [80] - has all of the rams reported being triples. If you have a RS which says something different I would be most interested.
I note in passing that triple rams were so universal thet they were depicted as such on coins a hundred years later - see coin image in article.
  • with the first 17 ships to arrive to the Lipari Islands Maybe add the islands were close to Sicily, because before I clicked to the link I had no idea where they are.
Very good point. Clarified.
  • move he despatched 20 ships under Boodes to the town Boodes who?
ER, the one you link to when you click on his name. (He didn't have any other name that we know of.)
  • Some Romans panicked and fled inland and the consul himself was taken prisoner You mean the Consul?
Done.
  • The year after Mylae, 259 BC, the consul Lucius Cornelius Scipio led part of the fleet against Aléria in Corsica and captured it Maybe I cannot calculate but the sentence before told us the year 262 BC and I don't think 262-1 is 259 BC?
The C's were raiding from 262. Stop. The year after Mylae - which was in 260, so the year after was 259. I am not sure what is unclear, but obviously something is, so I will have a look at rephrasing.
  • I think there are more information about the campaigns in Corsica and Sardinia. Like what happened with Ulbia, the rest of Corsica and Sardinia?
None of my sources say. None of them even mention Aléria again. I assume that the primary sources don't say anything. Three secondary sources have variants of the attacks fizzled our=t and were not renewed.
Nothing happened with Ulbia - the Roman attack failed and there is no record of Ulbia being attacked again.
  • The Romans then raided both Lipari and Malta Didn't they captured Malta?
Not that I have a source for.
  • I guess together with the Corsica and Sardinia events are lost history :/
There is quite a lot that we don't have information for; or only partial or patchy information. I have tried to put together a coherent account without repeatedly mentioning where our knowledge runs out. Things are probably similar for many/most articles, just a little more obvious here.
  • They planned to cross to Africa and invade what is now Tunisia.[96][71][97] Re-oder the refs here.
Done.
  • Link Battle of Cape Ecnomus.
Done.
  • Most of the Roman ships returned to Sicily, leaving Regulus with 15,000 infantry and 500 cavalry to continue the war in Africa Why did they leave and why not all?
To fight the war in Africa. The sources don't say. And the modern sources I have don't guess.
  • Hamilcar, Hasdrubal and Bostar were placed in joint Who are the other two commanders?
Two Carthaginians who turn up in the primary sources on this sole occasion and who don't have articles because this is all the information there is on them. I prefer not to red link them as there is little possibility of them being turned blue, but would value your opinion.
  • Nah, maybe in the future they can become blue. Let them stay black as they usually are.
  • They gave charge of the training of their army to the Spartan, mercenary commander Xanthippus Xanthippus who?
Just Xanthippus. That was his whole name.
  • Question, I don't know if there is a policy here but, shouldn't we add toponyms at the first time too?
If you mean as in Xanthippus of Sparta, my RSs don't use that term, just his singular name.
  • 2,000 retreated to Aspis; 500, including Regulus, were captured; the rest were killed. This is a start of a sentence please try to avoid using numbers at the start of a sentence.
I often forget this. Thanks. Fixed.
  • They lost another 150 ships, from a fleet of 220, to a storm while returning from raiding the North African coast east of Carthage. They rebuilt again. Maybe merge the really short sentence?
I prefer not to.
  • In late 251 or early 251 BC the Carthaginian commander Hasdrubal Maybe switch early and late here.
My typo; my bad. Changed to 'In late 251 or early 250 BC'. Which is the correct chronological order.
  • The Carthaginian commander Adherbal was able to lead his fleet Adherbal who?
Linked.
  • before they were trapped and counter attacked in the Battle of Drepana You mean counter-attacked?
I do. Done. Have you read my appreciation of people who know where commas hyphens go here?
  • against the shore and after a hard day's fighting were heavily defeated by the more manoeuvrable Do we know how heavily they were defeated?
Not really. Of 123 ships, 93 of their ships captured, an unknown number sunk. It seemed a bit unnecessary detail to add that, but what do you think?
  • Something inside me tells we should because this Wikipedia and we should add as much information as possible. But from the other side this is a long article and we shouldn't go to detailed so let's say we'll let it stay like this and add the numbers in the Battle's article.
That was my thinking, but prepared to change it. Full details are in Battle of Dreana. ("Pulcher led a successful breakout by 30 Roman ships, the only ones to survive the battle. The result was an utter Roman defeat, with 93 of their ships captured, an unknown number sunk, and 20,000 men killed or captured.")
  • able to use their superior army to interfere.[132][65] Re-oder the refs here.
Done.
  • Hamilcar employed combined arms tactics in a Fabian strategy Wasn't Hamilcar Barca the real name because I thought they had barely surnames and middle names so isn't it part of their name at the time?
It is usual to name an individual in full at first mention - which I do two sentences earlier - and thereafter to refer to them by a single name.
  • -ise vs -ize.
I can't find an inappropriate "-ize". Where should I be looking?
  • I think I'm seeing ghosts; I was totally sure they were there.
I think that you are working too hard!
  • Maybe, who knows? :)
  • the Carthaginians, led by Hamilcar Barca, began a series of campaigns to expand Is there a link for the campaigns?
Short answer - no. Longer answer - I have linked it to a sub-section of Carthaginian Iberia.
  • Sicily became the first Roman province as Sicilia, governed by a former praetor Who and how was this the first province weren't there areas in mainland Italy provinces?
Nope. They were either incorporated into Rome proper, or retained their [quasi-]autonomy as Latin allies. See also the first sentence of Sicilia (Roman province).
  • and when Carthage besieged the Roman protected town of Saguntum in eastern Iberia in 218 BC, it ignited the Second Punic War with Rome Was there a reason why they besieged it? We also need a hyphen between Roman and protected.
Yes, but it is, IMO, getting off topic. This article is on the First Punic war. We do - inserted.
  • The term Punic comes from the Latin word Punicus (or Poenicus), meaning "Carthaginian", and is a reference to the Carthaginians' Phoenician ancestry Unlink Latin in the notes.
Done.
  • 100 talents was approximately 2,600 kilograms (2.6 LT) of silver Long ton should be written fully same with the other notes.
Done.
  • This assumes, per G. K . Tipps, that all 114 captured Carthaginian vessels were sailing with the Romans Remove the unnecessary space here.
Done.
  • primarily on the Mediterranean island of Sicily and its surrounding waters I had a discussion with Sturm or PB don't remember which one but we shan't link Mediterranean here.
Not IMO.
  • I guess this is an ongoing never ending issue.
Rereading, I am not sure if you are saying that "Mediterranean" should or shouldn't be linked. My view is that it shouldn't.
  • No no, I mean this will be a never ending story because this is opinions by some editors and I guess you have to know your nominators whether it is needed to be linked or not.
  • However, they believe that the many amphorae identified confirm the accuracy --> "However, they believe that the many amphorae identified to confirm the accuracy"
Sorry, no; my version is correct. (Yours is not grammatical.)
  • Hard pressed by Syracuse, the Mamertines in Messana appealed to both Rome Hard pressed needs a hyphen?
Done.
  • It was recognised that this step may lead to ill feeling from Carthage A hyphen between ill and feeling is needed.
Done.
  • a port city half way along the south coast of Sicily Merge half and way.
Done.
  • In spite of this victory, the Romans who were attempting to support Maybe replace "in spite of" with "despite"?
Done.
  • After a prolonged and confused day of fighting the Carthaginians were defeated --> "After a prolonged and confusing day of fighting the Carthaginians were defeated"?
Either is fine, but I prefer mine.
  • The Romans sent a fleet evacuate their survivors and the Carthaginians attempted to oppose it --> "The Romans sent a fleet to evacuate their survivors and the Carthaginians attempted to oppose it"
Oops. Thanks. Fixed.
  • The Romans were pinned against the shore and after a hard day's fighting were heavily defeated by the more manoeuvrable Carthaginian ships with their better trained crews --> " The Romans were pinned against the shore and after a hard day's fighting were heavily defeated by the more manoeuvrable Carthaginian ships with their better-trained crews"
Done.
  • Romans could react and unloaded reinforcements and a large quantity of supplies --> "Romans could react and unloaded reinforcements and a large number of supplies"?
No. (It's like saying a large number of air.)
  • By now, the Romans were experienced at shipbuilding, and with a proven vessel as a model produced high quality quinqueremes --> "By now, the Romans were experienced at shipbuilding, and with a proven vessel as a model produced high-quality quinqueremes"
Done.
  • There is something strange with the image "File:First_Punic_War_264_BC_v2.png" because if you look at this "File:Carthage_Holdings.png" these maps' borders of the Carthaginian Empire don't match with each other so I'm a little bit confused which one the Carthaginian Empire looks like before the war broke out?
"File:First_Punic_War_264_BC_v2.png" is sourced to a RS; "File:Carthage_Holdings.png" is unsourced.
  • And last comment about which Hanno the Great are we talking about?
Correctly linked at first mention - there was only one Hanno the Great at this time.

Part 2

  • the First Punic War is based on several, now-lost, Greek and Latin sources Unlink Latin?
Done.
  • recruited from the Balearic Islands.[46][43] Re-oder the refs here.
Done.
  • their superior army to interfere.[65][66][65] Excuse me found an embarrassing issue here; remove the second 65's citation.
Done.
  • provided by their Latin or Greek allies.[67][68][39] Re-oder the refs here.
Done.
  • The Romans followed up and captured Tunis, only 16 kilometres (10 mi) from Carthage Needs "|abbr=on"; second mentioned kilometres here.
Done.
  • 50 Carthaginian quinqueremes gathered off the Aegates Islands, which lie 15–40 kilometres (9–25 mi) to the west of Sicily Same as above.
Done.
  • being able to use their superior army to interfere.[135][65] Re-der the refs here.
Done.
  • left up to his subordinate Gesco.[155][154] Same as above.
Done.
  • LTs in the notes should be fully written long tons per this
Done.
  • Link long tons in the note 5.
Done.
  • Replace Italy with the Italian Peninsula 'cause Sardia and Sicilia are also both Italy and it's also too wide-known to link it. Another alternative is Mainland Italy.
Replaced with the Roman name for peninsular Italy and linked.

That's it from me phew I think this my biggest review I've ever made. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a monster. Thank you very much, I am grateful. I shall try to complete my response over the weekend. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CPA-5 I think that that is everything you have flagged up addressed. See what you make of my responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I don't really have the time to continue this. 'Cause of our lockdown, school and real life issues I won't be that much online for a week or longer.
  • Okay mate it took me some time to counter-reply your responses. But the floor is yours. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CPA-5. It's good to have you back. You OK. Your family OK. Apart, of course, from being frustrated at being cooped up. Did you get to see your dad?
OK. Your responses to my responses responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gog the Mild Still had no contact. I just came back from a sunny walk with my dog and worked in our garden. What bloody beautiful weather. Hopefully, it is that sunny over there too. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CPA-5 That's a bummer. It was a glorious day over here too. I walked into town and back. To take some pictures of a war memorial for a Wikipedia editor. It was spookily quiet.
A couple of comments above. So, is it improved enough/irredeemable enough to shift you from that soft neutral. In either case, many thanks: you have put an awful lot of work into this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wouldn't surprise me it was spookily quiet. In my home city, there are still people walking here and there (not much of course) you could say there is no lockdown at all. Let me guess are those pictures for HJ Mitchell?
  • @Gog the Mild: I responded to your responses to my (again) responses to your (again) responses to my (once again) responses to your (once again) responses to my comments. The reason why I took to soft neutral is because I believe there were indeed a lot of comments. And I believe there were probably more evens about Corsica and Sardinia and I believed they should be expanded. Like you told PM below me, this isn't really your best work but I don't believe that's bad. We all learn something new every day and maybe you need more time to experiment in Roman topics. I'm not saying it's bad but that's why most people just take one era or topic to work on like PM with Yugoslav topics, both Sturm and PB with their warships, AR about Australian military history, Nick-D about WWII history and the list goes on and on . Maybe you are still using your Hundred Years' War style of writing. But after my last comments are addressed I will change it to a support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right. But I like the intellectual challenge of researching and wrapping my head around a completely new topic. Plus writing about an entire 23-year-long war was never going to be easy. Thank goodness that writing an article on Wikipedia is a collaborative process. I have lost track of the comments above. If there is anything left for me to address, could you repeat it below for me? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just made a sandwich for you; hope you like it. And don't worry you'll master it in no time. If you know me then you know I always have a check-up before I'll give the nominators my support. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CPA-5, now you have made me hungry. All of the layers of your sandwich now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hehe, eating your food is the best medicine for hungry. I've changed it to support; I cannot keep this as a soft neutral forever by searching every tiny little issue here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't put it past you. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: Now excuse me, I'm now gonna eat my chocolate mousse because this review made hungrily I assume you enjoyed your supper too. (I really have chocolate mousse with me.) ;)

Image review—pass[edit]

What an idiot! I have added Goldsworthy, with a broad page range. I am not sure that specifying 12 separate ranges would help a reader. (And it would be a pain to do!)
  • I'm not concerned by the discrepancy flagged by CPA-5, because the image that you used has a stronger source.
  • All images are free, correctly licensed, and relevant; all other images are sourced. buidhe 21:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Buidhe. Thanks for the review, and for picking up on my stupidity. My comment above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Passing—I have no issues with this citation style for images. buidhe 12:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review—pass
  • Sources are reliable, and the best sources (e.g. recent books) are used most heavily, as it should be
  • No issues with how sources are used
  • No source checks done.
  • I'd be happy to review this article again at FAC, so please ping me. buidhe 21:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is very kind of you Buidhe. I see this as a bit of a slow burner, and want to get it right before nominating it for FAC, but I shall certainly ping you when I do. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Wow, impressive effort to condense this all down to a readable article. I have a few comments:

Thanks Peacemaker67, high praise indeed. A bit of a labour of love; not my best work, as CPA-5 points out above; and lots of judgement calls as to what doesn't make the cut in order to keep it to a manageable size.
  • in the lead, suggest piping the link to the Mercenary War to "major but unsuccessful revolt" rather than just revolt, per WP:EASTEREGG
Done.
  • also in the lead, "between Rome and Carthage would lead"
Done.
  • when did the Carthaginian troops arrive at Messana?

"The precise chronology of these events is unclear." (Goldsworthy.) Some time in 265 or 264 BC.

  • when did the Roman Senate decide to send troops to Messana?
Added. Also added when the Mamertines appealed for help.
  • The Background section doesn't explain why both empires sending forces to Messana would lead to conflict. What were the orders to the respective forces?
Umm. The Carthaginians and the Romans both accepted Messana as a subject town and both sent garrisons. The Romans in the knowledge that the Carthaginian garrison was already in place. What could go wrong?
"convincing the Mamertines to accept a Carthaginian garrison in Messana. According to Polybius, a considerable debate took place in Rome as to whether to accept the Mamertines' appeal for assistance, which could easily lead to war with Carthage." I could easily lay this on a bit thicker if you think it necessary, it just seemed clear enough to me.
I strongly disagree with this. Were they both aware that the other empire had also been asked for assistance? The article doesn't make it at all clear why both empires sending forces to Messana would lead to conflict, particularly given the two empires had cooperated in the past. Is there any info about what the Roman commander was told to do? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, not explicitly. Polybius and the secondary sources I read seem to make the same assumption I have. There is a fair bit on the broad causes of the war, but not on the detail you want. I will see how closely I can dance around that without ORing.
I have rejigged the last two paragraphs of "Background"; see what you think.
  • could you vary the language "most" in "Most male Roman citizens were eligible for military service, most would serve"?
Done.
  • "better-off" is a bit colloquial
Really? Changed to "the wealthier".
  • how big was the force that landed at Messana in 264 BC?
Two legions, as it says in the text. Say a minimum of 10,000 men, quite possibly more, but that's OR. The sizes of the Carthaginian and Syracusan forces are not known.
  • it isn't clear how the Romans besieged Syracuse, then lifted the siege, then the Syracusians made peace with the Romans because of a brief siege? Is this the same siege that was quickly lifted, or a second one?
A second one. The second sentence recast to try and make this clearer.
  • "prevented them from shippeding supplies by sea"
Oops. Thanks. Fixed.
  • throughout, I would actually link major battles by name rather than piping them to narrative, also some of them are EASTEREGGY, eg "immediate attack"
27 months of nominating articles on Wikipedia, and Easter eggs have never come up. Now, three mentions in a week. Makes me wonder if I have changed my writing style. Done.
  • is there target links for "ultimately fruitless campaign against Corsica and Sardinia" and "equally fruitless expedition to Africa"?
No.
  • the Cconsul himself
Done.
  • link crucifixion
Done, but the last time I linked it a(n experienced) FAC reviewer asked me to unlink it.
  • suggest "9nine of the leading 10ten Roman ships." and "8eight Carthaginian ships and captured 10ten"
Done.
  • Lipari is duplinked
Fixed.

Down to Invasion of Africa, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for wading through this one Peacemaker, I know that it's a bit hefty. All good stuff above. See what you think of my changes, and I await your comments on the second half. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and threaten their capital, Carthage" you've already established it was their capital
I have taken it out, but reviewers in the past have complained that it is not always clear whether Carthage/Rome the state or |Carthage/Rome the city is mean - the previous phraseology seemed a useful disambiguater.
  • "(close to what is now Tunis)" as we learn later that Tunis existed then
Done.
Good thinking - I got jammed up on how to rephrase that.
  • link Hasdrubal the Fair
Sorry - my usual sloppiness in not fully checking the lead I inherited. A different Hasdrubal. Who appears for a walk on role in this battle and disappears again, so I was/am reluctant to red link.
  • drop the comma from "the Spartan, mercenary commander Xanthippus"
Done.
  • link mercenary at first mention, in the Background section
Done.
  • link guerrilla warfare
Done.
  • is there a link for "defeated the undermanned and ill-trained Carthaginian fleet"?
Already linked. I missed naming this one per your earlier suggestion. Changed to 'in the hard-fought battle of the Battle of the Aegates Islands the better-trained Romans defeated the undermanned and ill-trained Carthaginian fleet.'

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peacemaker, very helpful. All addressed. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by T8612[edit]

  • The Mamertines occupied Messena in 289, see Cambridge Ancient History, p. 474.
True. Originally it said that. I have no idea why I changed it, but thanks for spotting it. Fixed.
  • I think the role of Appius Claudius Caudex is not highlighted enough. He may well have been the guy who decisively pushed for war, because of his personal ambition (cf. Cambridge Ancient History, p. 544, the second paragraph). It seems he got the command of the war by promising booty to the people in the assembly. He should also be in the infobox, and perhaps the lead.
I don't see that this is the consensus of scholarly opinion. To be frank, I don't really see it as supported by Scullard. "it is possible that no formal war-vote was passed by the Roman people and that their vote that help be sent to the Mamertines empowered Claudius to implement this order in whatever way he judged fit."; "or could Claudius himself have been authorized to act as deputy?" After a paragraph of hedging and kite flying Scullard concludes "At any rate, whatever the formalities, Rome was now at war with Carthage and Syracuse." which I think that I have reasonably captured in the article. I repeat, bear in mind that Miles, Goldsworthy and Bagnall - just the first three book length treatments of the Punic Wars I checked - don't mention him in this role at all.
Other sources for Caudex the warmonger: Hoyos, Unplanned Wars, pp. 47-49 (and p. 61 for his use of the assembly to bypass the Senate). James Tan says here that Caudex brought the mobilised soldiers at the assembly and promised them booty to win the vote. See also Bruno Bleckmann in Hoyos' Companion To the Punic War, pp. 170-171. I don't mind you being cautious and say something along the line of "Some historians suggest that Caudex might have been one of the leading voices for the war, while the majority of the Senate was against it. He possibly bypassed the opposition of the senate by using the assembly, where he promised booty to the voters."
That is convincing to me. Thanks. I have tweaked. See what you think.
  • I don't really like the lead, because it goes in too much details, telling how many ships were lost for example. It would be better to theorise a bit, notably by saying Rome won the war on the sea, while it was completely inexperienced in this area before the war. Lutatius Catulus should be named as well, since the Treaty of Lutatius is mentioned. You could also mentioned the corvus. I would say something like this for the third paragraph:

    The war initially fought in Sicily, but after four years of conflict with no decisive victory on either side, the war shifted on the sea. In 260 BC the Romans built their first fleet equipped with a new device, the corvus, which enabled the consul Gaius Duillius to win the first naval victory of Rome. Thanks to the corvus, the Roman fleet then won a string of victories: in Corsica in 259, Sulci in 258, Tyndaris in 257, and Cape Ecnomus in 256. The latter battle was perhaps the largest sea-battle in history. Wishing to end the war quickly, Rome sent an expeditionary force in Africa led by the Marcus Atilius Regulus in 256. Regulus was at first successful, but the operation ended in a disaster after Carthage had given the military command to Xanthippus, a Spartan mercenary. Rome nevertheless won a new large naval victory at the Cape Hermaeum in 255, but the corvus impeded manoeuvrability of the ships in difficult weather and two storms annihilated their fleet in 255 and 253. By now, both sides were exhausted and fighting returned on Sicily. Rome conquered most of the island after its victory at Panormus in 251, but Carthage held its two strongholds of Drepana and Lilybaeum in Western Sicily, while Hamilcar Barca organised a guerrilla in Mt. Eryx. In 244, Rome started to blockade Drepana and Lilybaeum, which finally led Carthage to attempt breaking the siege in 241. The Punic navy was however undermanned, and the consul Lutatius Catulus won a crushing victory off the Aegate Islands, forcing Carthage to sue for peace.

  • This way I have reduced the description of the fighting to one paragraph. It leaves you a bit more room to detail the origins of the war (in the second paragraph), and its consequences (in the fourth). I would additionally mention in the last paragraph: the emergence of the Barcids, the birth of the Roman provincial system, and the subsequent annexation of Sardinia which created revanchism in Carthage. T8612 (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that we are having philosophical differences here. If you think that the lead is too detailed, I am happy to attempt to trim it and we can relook at it. However, MOS:INTRO requires that "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." As the vast majority of the article is about the fighting - which seems reasonable to me, the article is about a war - then surely so should most of the lead be? I don't want to make room to detail other aspects. In particular I am not enthusiastic about putting in to the lead virtually all of the Aftermath (which only makes up less than 6% of the article).
Similarly, not being a supporter of the great man theory of history I don't want to put any names into the lead, and certainly not ones which do not feature in the article.
Can I suggest that we "park" the lead for now? I am certainly not saying that it is perfect, and would have no issues with trimming it. Although at less than 11% of the size of the main article it is not long by Wikipedia standards. But if we change the main article, I will then need to change the lead. So could you make any comments you have on changing, adding to, removing from and amending the main article; we can discuss and hopefully resolve them; and then we can debate what should go in the lead and with what weight. Does that make sense?
I'm fine with you avoiding telling too many names in the lede; they are in the infobox after all. Except in one case: remove "Treaty of Lutatius", or say "named after the victorious consul", or just "final treaty". However, my main concern is that you detail too much the outcome of the battles, you don't have to tell how many ships were lost in the introduction, "the Carthaginians were heavily defeated" is enough, the "losing 114 ships captured" is not needed.
Done.
I do think that the aftermath section could be expanded a bit. You could tell about the rise of the Barcids. You only mention Hannibal in a footnote for example. Dexter Hoyos wrote another book on the "Barcid Empire" as he calls it (Hannibal's Dynasty: Power and Politics in the Western Mediterranean, 247-183 BC), that could be mentioned here. T8612 (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to expand a bit. Not so sure about expanding what I already have on Barcid Spain. Even less sure about mentioning Hannibal in an article about a war which ended when he was six.

Hi T8612 and apologies for taking so long to get back to you. Many thanks for bringing your expertise to bear on this one. My initial thoughts on your opening comments are above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T8612 replies and actions in response to your latest comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi T8612: I finally have time to come back to this. I have lost track of where we are a little. I have addressed some of your comments, but am not sure if I have done all of them. Possibly you could check and point me towards any I have not yet covered, and any further comments you may have. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, sorry for the delay. I would only amend the following sentence: "Carthage, seeking to make up for the recent territorial losses and to gain a source of silver to pay the large indemnity owed to Rome, turned its attention to Iberia (modern Spain); in 237 BC, the Carthaginians, led by Hamilcar Barca, began a series of campaigns to expand their control over the peninsula." In fact the Spanish conquest was made by the Barcids rather than the Carthaginian state; Spain became their personal domain. Therefore I think you should highlight the place taken by Hamilcar and the Barcids. Something like this: "Thanks to his military success against Rome and the Mercenaries, Hamilcar gained a great influence [Hoyos says "supremacy"] over the Carthaginian state. In 237 BC, the Barcid family led the conquest of Iberia as a compensation for the recent territorial losses and to gain a source of silver to pay the large indemnity owed to Rome." You can simply cite Hoyos, Hannibal's Dynasty, pp. 1-2. T8612 (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
T8612, no problem, it has taken me long enough to get back to people. Good point. I have gone with slightly different wording, based on what is in Mercenary War. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, that's a great article. Supporting now. Perhaps I'll have other things to say during the FAC. T8612 (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Parsecboy[edit]

  • I'm not concerned about the length; the article is 64kb, which includes more than just the readable prose
  • I do think the section on sources would be best at the end of the article
If sources are discussed in the text of a work, which they usually are for this period, they are invariably at the start of it. This is the case for the five paper sources I have to hand and can readily check. And I have run four battles from the First Punic War through FAC over the past six months with the same format without a peep of protest. I am not personally that fussed, but I am sure that if I move it I will be requested to revert it as soon as this gets to FAC.
Fair enough
Done, thanks. I linked in the lead, so it was a bit silly to have missed it in the article.
  • Do we need the same key in the caption of all of the maps? Not necessarily saying we don't, as I suppose readers might skip around, just asking if you've considered it.
Hmm. Well, I could make an argument, but it's a good point. Fixed.
  • Can you shift the map for the Invasion of Africa section up a paragraph? For me, it impinges on the section below
Done.

I think this article is in fine shape, and after reading it, I don't have anything but a nitpick or two. Parsecboy (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Parsecboy, your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, great work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2020 (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) 09:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Mosaic[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

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

Toolbox

Next in the British nuclear tests series after Operation Totem. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Sources look reliable, but there are some consistency issues. Some journals and PDFs are listed under references, while others are cited as footnotes without giving page numbers (which harms WP:V). Some books have both ISBN and OCLC, while others have just ISBN (I recommend dropping OCLC as it is duplicative, but either way, be consistent.) You also have overcited the statement, "Menzies cabled his approval of the tests on 20 June 1955". Suggest breaking up those refs by moving closer to the content they support or dropping the weakest/ least reliable one. buidhe 04:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • All journals are listed in the references.
    • Then what is "RAAF Involvement in Nuclear Testing" (PDF). Pathfinder. No. 232. October 2014. Retrieved 9 August 2018. Looks like a journal to me.
      It's a fortnightly bulletin put out by the Airpower Development Centre. It's not a journal, but the bulletins are collected into one, so cited that instead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Australia Station Intelligence Summary" (PDF). Royal Australian Navy. June 1956. Retrieved 7 August 2018. May be a report, but there still needs to be page number to comply with WP:V.
      It is a report, so added the page number. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the book and journal citations have page numbers.
  • All the books in the reference with an ISBN have an OCLC, but one older book has no ISBN. The two do not duplicate each other.
  • I've split the reference on Menzies' acceptance.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

I reviewed this at GAN 18 months ago and not much has changed, so I only have a few comments:

  • suggest "After the war ended, the British government expected"
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The resulting nuclear fusion reactions produced neutrons"
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • move the link to Royal Navy to first mention
    checkY Linked/unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "RAAF Base Pearce near Perth, and Onslow in the Pilbara region"
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "RAAF Base Darwin"
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is tension between "Two tests were therefore added to the schedule: one with a lead tamper to investigate the effect of lithium deuteride, and one with a natural uranium tamper to investigate its effect." in the Purpose and site selection section, and "Given the result of G1, plans were changed for G2. It had been intended to use a lead tamper for G2, but given the low yield of G1, a natural uranium tamper was substituted"
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Onlow→Onslow
    checkY well spotted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the AWTSC set a limit of 80 kT? But earlier it says "so the promised upper limit was about 60 kilotonnes of TNT"
    checkY There isn't really a contradiction here, but added that one of 80 kt was subsequently agreed to. There was a constant tension between the politicians' wanting to nail limits down and the scientists who couldn't really be sure because they were dealing with things they didn't fully understand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It now says "Later one if 80 kilotonnes of TNT (330 TJ) limit would be agreed to." Later on an"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I could find. Nice work as always. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright[edit]

Lead:

  • At the time of the Royal Commission into British nuclear tests in Australia in 1984–1985 there emerged a claim that the second test was of a significantly higher yield than suggested by available figures: 98 kilotonnes of TNT (410 TJ) as compared to 60 kilotonnes of TNT (250 TJ); but this claim remains unsubstantiated.
    Consider replacing the second “in” that follows Australia with "during" - it's defined as throughout the course or duration of a period of time.
    "At the time of the Royal Commission into British nuclear tests in Australia in 1984–1985" - this has the characteristics of an introductory phrase or clause, but without punctuation. A comma after 1985 would help breakup an otherwise 35-word stretch before a punctuated pause.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two tests would provide important information that would materially advance progress towards building a British hydrogen bomb.[11][12]
    Consider replacing the second would with could. Could indicates the possibility of something.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There area was too isolated, with the nearest road over 100 miles (160 km) away, and only tracked vehicles or those with special tyres could traverse the intervening sand dunes.
    Tyres?
    Special tyres. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations:

  • ... four RAF Hastings aircraft flew between the UK and Australia, and two Whirlwind helicopters provided a taxi service
    taxi service seems specific, wouldn’t it be "the” rather than a?
    Better as it is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G1:

  • The fissile material was delivered by a RAF Hastings to Onslow, from whence it was collected by HMS Alert on 11 May and delivered to the Monte Bello Islands the following day.
    This sentence seems to have three independent clauses, in which case the comma after Onslow should be replaced with a semicolon and a comma added after 11 May.
    checkY Comma added after "11 May". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following day, Martell set 16 May as the day for the test.
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The second day should be replaced with date - a date is a particular day.
  • The main danger to the ships' crews was considered to be from radioactive seaweed, so the crews were prohibited from catching or eating fish, and ships' evaporators were not run.
    • Replace the comma after seaweed with a semicolon to join the independent clauses.
      "so" acts as a conjustion here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the definite article before the last mention of ships’.
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G2:

  • There then followed a period of waiting for suitable weather conditions.
    "There then"?
    checkY Delerted "there". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - Pendright (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting - Pendright (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • A 15 July deadline was set as the terminal date Is an awkward sentence if a compound adjective is a date in my eyes.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The British government was anxious that Grapple should take place before a proposed moratorium --> "The British Government was anxious that Grapple should take place before a proposed moratorium" Per MOS:INSTITUTIONS.
    MOS:INSTITUTIONS says the opposite: that it should not be capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • After a re-read, I give you a point, but after a quick research I found out these [81], [82], [83], [84], [85] even the Australia Government's website and if we count this as reliable than I think countries' governments should be capitalised, even if this policy applied? It could be a WP:ENGVAR issue because I also see it a lot in British but not in American. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggested by available figures: 98 kilotonnes of TNT (410 TJ) Link TNT and TJ.
    checkY linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The British government expected that the United States --> "The British Government expected that the United States"
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the British government restarted its own development Same as above.
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • cooperation vs co-operation
    checkY WP:ENGVAR issue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The British government therefore resolved --> "The British Government therefore resolved"
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The British government was most anxious Same as above.
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a lot of "kilotonnes"; per MOS:UNITNAMES we shouldn't mention long units again after their first mentions.
    Doesn't have one. (Template:Convert) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later a 80 kilotonnes of TNT (330 TJ) limit Compound adjective here (and a typo in the article).
    checkY Adjusted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In June 1955, the Admiralty Remove 1955 here; it's already mentioned a sentence before.
    checkY deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • chaired by Lieutenant General Sir Frederick Morgan The Britons use a hyphen in their lieutenant general.
    The article is written in Australian English, and the Brits no longer uses the hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Australian government created a Monte Bello --> "The Australian Government created a Monte Bello"
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • created by the Australian government to oversee Same as above.
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A pair of RAN 120ft Motor Lighters, MWL251 Convert?
    checkY Trticky, because that is the name of the article. Converted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • water and refrigeration respectively.[32][30][33] Re-order the refs here.
    checkY re-ordered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Down to G1. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC) @CPA-5: Anything more? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, there is more, give me a sec.
  • A 15 July deadline was set as the terminal Is an awkward sentence if a compound adjective is a date in my eyes.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • G2 was going to be smaller than G1.[50][47][51] Re-order the refs.
    checkY Re-ordered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To avoid embarrassing the minister, the safety Which minister?
    checkY Beale. Changed to "him" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • An annual exposure of 150 millisieverts (15 rem) Link the units here.
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • would receive a dose of 580 microsieverts (0.058 rem) Same as above.
    I think linking the units once is enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seamen in Fremantle demanded that the SS Koolinda, a cattle transport What was she?
    A cattle transport. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Hermite Island?
    It is very small, uninhabited, and just one of 180 named islands in the Montebello Islands archipelago. I don't think an article will ever be created about it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Summary" section kt should be kilotonnes?
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link TJ in the infobox.
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a fan of just adding a name in an image without clarification; maybe add their type of ships to clarify it again?
  • ould allow a 50 kilotonnes of TNT (210 TJ) Compound adjective here.
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There area was too isolated Odd sentence; should it be "their"?
    checkY Typo. Changed to "The". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • AWTSC would be present on board the Task Force 308 flagship Not "onboard"?
    "Onboard" is used before a noun it modifies (eg onboard navigation equipment); otherwise you use "on board" (eg. on board the Task Force 308 flagship) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks great, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2020 (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 Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Yugoslav torpedo boat T4[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Yugoslav torpedo boat T4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Only two more of these dinky little Yugoslav torpedo boats to get through ACR now. This one had a busy WWI in the Adriatic with the Austro-Hungarian Navy, but didn't make it to WWII, running aground on the Dalmatian coast in 1932, and becoming a total loss. Part of the 36-article Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic I'm slowly moving towards Featured. Hopefully most of the rough edges have been ground off through the reviews of her sister boats, which I am pretty sure I have transferred to this one. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, PM, hope you are well and can enjoy some semblance of a happy Easter -- I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • everything in the infobox appears to be covered in the body (no action required)
  • sources appear to be reliable based upon authors or publishers (no action required)
  • tonnes and long tons is overlinked in the description section
  • in the lead, I wonder if some of the dates should be mentioned: laid down, launched or commissioned?
  • suggest adding links for officers, enlisted
  • In 1917, one of her 66 mm guns was placed -- suggest clarifying which ship this is, as Orjen is the last one mentioned by name, so "her" is potentially ambiguous
  • other than the placement of the 66 mm gun, do we know what the boat did during 1917?
  • do we have any idea what the ship did between 1918 and 1920, or at least specifically June to November 1918?
  • Due to inadequate funding,79T and the rest of the 250t class were essentially coastal vessels: I wonder if this could be teased out a little more. I assume the lack of funding meant that certain design features that were originally planned didn't come to fruition, and that these affected sea keeping?
  • the source doesn't go into depth, but presumably things like seakeeping etc were affected by limitations on displacement etc. Added that it was the class that was underfunded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and this contributed to ongoing problems with them: did inexperience with the turbines resulted in poor maintenance?
  • Again, the source doesn't go into depth, but I suppose like anything new, it takes time for crews and maintenance staff to get used to it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1914, one 8 mm (0.31 in) machine gun was added: was this MG used for close-in defence?
  • do we know what caused the ship to run aground? Crew error? Were there any consequences?
  • No, unfortunately the usual sources provide no detail, and presumably she was too small to rate overseas news picking up the story, as I couldn't find anything on Trove. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • do we know the exact date the ship ran aground?
  • "File:Austro-Hungarian torpedo boat 81T NH 87683.tif": the date given is "before 1921", but the source page says that the ship is returning with the crew of the sunken cruiser Zenta, so it is more likely c. early 1916, surely, as that was when the crew were freed?
  • page range for Cernuschi & O'Hara's chapter in Tucker?
  • Sorry, I meant in the References; compare Cernuschi & O'Hara 2015 with Cernuschi & O'Hara 2014 (one has a page range, and one doesn't). I have added this now -- please check this is correct. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, AustralianRupert! I think I've addressed everything I can. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • could sail from the Austro-Hungarian Navy (German: kaiserliche und königliche Kriegsmarine) Unlink German.
  • base at the Bay of Kotor (Bocche di Cattaro) to the Strait during darkness In which language was this?
  • displaced about 320 tonnes (315 long tons) fully loaded --> "displaced about 320 t (315 long tons) fully loaded"
  • They carried 18 tonnes (17.7 long tons) of coal and 24 tonnes (23.6 long tons) of fuel oil --> "They carried 18 t (17.7 long tons) of coal and 24 t (23.6 long tons) of fuel oil"
  • Can you also add Hungerian in the Austro-Hungarian Navy language template?
  • 79T and the rest of the 250t class were essentially --< "79 T and the rest of the 250t class were essentially"
  • The former has no space while the latter has a space.
  • On the night of 31 May – 1 June 1916 --> "On the night of 31 May/1 June 1916"
  • 79 T survived the war intact Begin of a sentence.
  • I better not prefer. A lot of sources say try to avoid starting a number's symbol at the start of the sentence. I believe a number is a number even it is part of a name. I believe we should use a number's symbol at the start of a sentence as the last option; here we can easily replace it with "she" (which isn't that much used in this article). Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you also do the same with this sentence 79 T was laid down on 1 December 1913,? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Serbo-Croatian Latin: Kraljevska Jugoslovenska Ratna Mornarica, KJRM; Краљевска Југословенска Ратна Морнарица) Maybe add Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic?
  • The ships and crews made a very good impression Maybe add a "their" after "and"?
  • Link full load in the infobox.

Okay that's it I think. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, CPA-5, just one query. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As always you're welcome mate. ;) Answered that lonely query of yours. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

The sole image is appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Zawed[edit]

  • In the infobox, should that be "enlisted men"?
  • "The 250t-class, T-group were..." is that comma supposed to be there or should there be another one after T-group?
  • "On the night of 31 May/1 June 1916...": I initially read this as being as part of the work of the force mentioned in the previous sentence but then it seems to be a different action altogether. I suggest putting this content as a separate paragraph (admittedly, quite a short para).
  • "...four 250t-class F-group boats" is there a convenient link for the F-group boats?
  • Only a section link in the class article, which is already linked. I could add it if you think it would be helpful? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see I had missed the first mention of the F-group boats in the description. No, if it is part of the 250t class page, should be fine. Zawed (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A nice tidy article, only a few things that I was able to nitpick. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done, Zawed, except one query. Thanks for taking a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with this, adding my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Sources are formatted consistently in an appropriate style.
  • Spotcheck on "Cernuschi, Enrico & O'Hara, Vincent P. (2014)." confirms that it is correctly sourcing the stated fact.
  • No other spotchecks for accuracy or copyvio carried out, as trusted nominator, and sources are offline.
  • All citations are to reliable sources.

No problems here, this is good from a sourcing point of view. Harrias talk 06:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for taking a look, Harrias! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 27 April 2020 (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) 08:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sarantaporo[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Catlemur (talk)

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

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because of this battle's historical significance for Greece. There are dozens of streets named after this battle all across the country. The Ottoman fortification system in the region was constructed under the guidance of German military advisors who considered it to be nearly impenetrable it was dubbed "the graveyard of the Greek Army" by Field Marshal von der Goltz.--Catlemur (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review
  • Apostolidis—what makes this a WP:RS?
It has been cited in a paper by a Aristotle University of Thessaloniki professor.--Catlemur (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that it is cited seven times and not discussed in text, so the usage here doesn't seem unreasonable. buidhe 15:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we have OCLC or other identifiers for Christopoulos and Apostolidis.
I found an ISBN for Christopoulos after an hour or so, but Apostolidis I cannot find an indentifier for.--Catlemur (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be consistent about listing publisher locations or not.
Added locations for all sources except the online paper.--Catlemur (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

I have done some copy editing which you will want to check.

Lead
  • It would be helpful to include a map at the bottom of the infobox showing the location f the battle within, say, modern Greece.
 Done
  • "It was the first major battle fought between Greek and Ottoman forces during the initial stages of the First Balkan War" Is "the initial stages of" necessary?
 Done
  • A reader only finds out who is defending the pass and who is attacking in the second paragraph of the lead. Even then it is not explicitly stated.
 Done
  • Is there a reason why both commanders are not named in the lead.
 Done
Background
  • A sentence or two of deep background, may be helpful; rather than suddenly starting a reader with the Greco-Turkish War of 1897.
@Gog the Mild: I think I have addressed all the points raised, including this one.--Catlemur (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Georgios Theotokis was the first post-war Greek prime minister to focus his attention on strengthening the army." When?
 Done
  • "Venizelos followed in Theotokis' footsteps by re-arming and re-training the military." Do you mean 'by continuing to re-arm and re-train the military'?
 Done
  • "including extensive fortification and infrastructure works" I don't see that these are either "re-arming and re-training the military".
Reworded the sentence.--Catlemur (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the invitation in 1911 of a British naval mission and a French military mission." It may help a reader to briefly state what each of them did.
 Done
  • "After being informed of a Serbo-Bulgarian alliance, Venizelos ordered his ambassador in Sofia to prepare a Greco-Bulgarian defense agreement by 14 April 1912, fearing that should Greece fail to participate in a future war against the Ottomans, it would be unable to capture the Greek majority areas of Macedonia." A long and complicated sentence. Consider breaking it up.
 Done
  • "the Ottomans declared mobilization on 14 September" Optional: 'the Ottomans mobilized their army [or 'armed forces] on 14 September'.
 Done
  • "The Ottoman Empire rebuffed the demands, recalled its ambassadors in Sofia, Belgrade and Athens and expelled the League's negotiators on 4 October, with the latter declaring war against the Ottomans, while Montenegro had already began military operations on 25 September." Another long sentence. Which also has "the League's negotiators ... declaring war against the Ottomans". Is that what you meant to say?
 Done
Prelude
  • "attacked the hastily organized defenses north of Elassona" Suggest deleting "the".
 Done
  • "The battle lasted for three hours" What battle? Perhaps 'The battle for Elassona lasted three hours'?
 Done
  • "those of a reserve division at Glikovo" Is it known which one?
The sources at my disposal do not mention which one.--Catlemur (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sarandaporo was a narrow mountain pass spanning some 7–8 kilometres (4–5 mi), the only one connecting Thessaly with central Macedonia." Suggest 'Sarandaporo was a narrow mountain pass, the only one connecting Thessaly with central Macedonia; it spanned some 7–8 kilometres (4–5 mi).'
 Done
Battle
  • "(0.31–0.43 mi)" 1. false precision, suggest |sigfig=1, 2. the natural conversion for metres is yards.
 Done
  • "The 4th Division fought its way through the Metaxas and Rachovo villages" Suggest 'The 4th Division fought its way through the villages of Metaxas and Rachovo'.
 Done
  • "sanguine" Maybe a more encyclopedic word or phrase? If you keep it, change to 'sanguinary'.
 Done
  • "The commander of the cavalry brigade ordered his unit to encamp at Loudani" Did the cavalry brigade have a name? has it been mentioned before? What was its role?
It did not have name, it was cavalry unit acting independently of the Divisions involved. I can mention its commander if needed. Its first mentioned in the Prelude and it role is outlined in the first paragraph of the Battle section.--Catlemur (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Fair enough then.
  • "Hani 739" is an odd place name. Does it indicate a hill or eminence?
Hani means inn in Greek, I assume 739 is the height at which it is located.--Catlemur (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "many soldiers began fleeing and abandoning their equipment" Suggest 'many soldiers fled, abandoning their equipment' or similar.
 Done
Aftermath
  • "witnessing 75 to 90 severed human heads"; "massacred 117 local Christians". I assume that the heads were those of some of the 117 Christians? If so, best to make this clear. Is it known what happened to the "missing" heads? Were they still attached to corpses?
Clarified that the heads belonged to those previously massacred. I assume the rest of the victims were not decapitated, but the sources are not making it clear.--Catlemur (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while the Ottomans lost" Possibly needs an 'approximately'.
 Done
  • "which solidified the League's territorial ambitions" I think this needs rephrasing.
 Done

A nice, solid little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That all looks good. A couple of further queries below:

  • "by continuing to re-arm and re-train the military, enacted extensive fortification and infrastructure works, purchased new weapons, and recalled the reserve classes for training." If you have continuing you shouls have enacting, purchasing and recalling as well.
 Done
  • "The League's negotiators declared war against the Ottomans." Just wanting to confirm that it was the actual negotiators who declared war. If they did, fine; usually countries declare war.
 Done
  • Klapsis: are you citing the 2009 or the 2013 edition?
Sorry wrong article, replaced it now.--Catlemur (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

  • Consider alt text.

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is good shape. I have a few comments:

  • link Old Style and New Style dates for O.S.
 Done
  • if the article is at Sarantaporo suggest using that throughout instead of other spellings
 Done
  • link Crete for Cretan, and drop later link
 Done
  • what were reserve classes?
Reworded as reservists.--Catlemur (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "who madeplaced an emphasis"
 Done
  • Général de brigade translates as Brigadier General, not Brigadier
 Done
  • drop the comma after "Joseph Paul Eydoux"
 Done
  • link Formation (military)
 Done
  • "Fearing that should"→"This was due to fears that should"
 Done
  • drop the comma after "against the Ottomans,"
 Done
  • hyphenate "Ottoman held" as a compound adjective
 Done
  • suggest piping Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria and Albania to the historic entities, not to the current ones
 Done
  • "namely the 1st Infantry Division, the 2nd Infantry Division, the 3rd Infantry Division, the 4th Infantry Division, the 5th Infantry Division, the 6th Infantry Division and the 7th Infantry Division"→"namely the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Infantry Divisions" and link to the ordinals
 Done
  • VIII Corps vs. VIII Provisional Corps
@Peacemaker67: Don't quite understand this remark. Everything else I think I've dealt with.--Catlemur (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You use both names, but I assume this is the same corps. Suggest consistency. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Catlemur (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "the Ottomans beganhad been methodically reinforcing"
 Done
  • Haliacmon River
 Done
  • suggest sanguinary→bloody
 Done
  • what was/is Hani 739? A spot height?
Hani means inn in Greek. The Ottoman defensive line was located right above it at a height of 739 meters. Hence its called Hani 739.--Catlemur (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Porta Pass, and panic"
 Done
  • link field artillery
 Done
  • for Albania link Independent Albania
 Done
  • what did the 6th and 7th Divisions do?
They were not involved in the battle. I just mentioned that they were part of the Army of Thessaly.--Catlemur (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • as Sarantaporon or Sarandaporon (Greek: Μάχη του Σαρανταπόρου) No Turkish language template?
 Done
  • Maybe standardise DD/MM/YYYY and MM/DD/YYYY. I reckon to use DD/MM/YYYY because it's the most common one in this article.
 Done
  • took place on October 9 – 10 (O.S.), 1912 I don't really agree to use only Old Style; maybe add a New Style date too or add a note how many days the difference was (in 20th century it was 13 days). Also remove the spaces between the hyphen and the dates.
Added a note on the date conversion.--Catlemur (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The disastrous Greek defeat in the Greco-Turkish War of 1897 Maybe add "short" after the second "the"?
 Done
  • Georgios Theotokis became the first post-war Greek prime minister Per Ngram we should use "postwar".
 Done
  • Venizelos followed in Theotokis' footsteps by re-arming and re-training the military Same as above per Ngram.
 Done
  • After being informed of a Serbo-Bulgarian alliance Link Serbo-Bulgarian alliance.
 Done
  • western Macedonia, totaled 35,000-40,000 men --> "western Macedonia, totaled 35,000–40,000 men"
 Done
  • The battle for Elassona lasted for three hours Was the battle a proper noun?
@CPA-5: I don't understand what is expected from me here.--Catlemur (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this battle is a proper noun then it should be "Battle of Elassona"?
Don't think its a proper noun, I am not a native speaker though.--Catlemur (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Catlemur: Me neither, but because we are depended on reliable source we should look at them and the most commonly of both of them should be used. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Can you briefly explain what am I supposed to do now?--Catlemur (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Its not a proper noun.--Catlemur (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thessaly with central Macedonia; it spanned some 7–8 kilometres (4–5 mi) --> "Thessaly with central Macedonia; it spanned some 7–8 km (4–5 mi)"
 Done
  • advance further due to heavy fog.[20][18] Re-order the refs here.
 Done
  • with the intention of occupying the Porta Pass What's a Porta Pass?
Its a mountain pass named Porta.--Catlemur (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe link it if it's not already linked before.
 Done
  • engaged in a disorganized retreat.[23][2] Re-order the refs here.
 Done
  • lined up on either side of one of its streets.[23][1] Same as above.
 Done
  • By WP:INFOBOXREF citations are not needed here because it already summarised it in the body.
 Done
  • "22-25 field artillery pieces" --> "22–25 field artillery pieces"
 Done
  • Link Old Style in the infobox.
 Done
  • Personally I didn't know how big a division is and it wouldn't surprise if others also don't. Maybe add a note there with a clarification of how big a division is in the infobox?
The Army of Thessaly numbered 100,000 men, that is 7 divisions plus auxiliary units. Perhaps there is a detailed breakdown of manpower per unit somewhere but I don't have access to it.--Catlemur (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me, I believe. It's something new instead of space, warships, Yugoslavs, Australian, nuclear programmes and others. I would love to have a series of this topic. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: I think I've addressed your concerns.--Catlemur (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Catlemur: I believe we're almost done; could you explain the readers which date styles we are talking about: 14 April 1912, 15 July 1912, 14 September, 30 September, 4 October and 25 September are these Old or New Styles? I've also tweaked a little bit if you don't mind. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: All the dates in the article are Old Style.--Catlemur (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Ok so basically the article is fine, what now? I am honestly getting tired of this.--Catlemur (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've teawked a little bit but it's now ready to go in my view and because I'm the last reviewer I'll post it to this page. Over there an independent co-ordinator will have a last minute look or this nomination has an image, source reviews and 3 normal supports before it become an A-class. I'd say chill for a moment, the request would normally pass within 24 hours. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2020 (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) 13:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Leonard Trent[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

Leonard Trent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another New Zealand VC recipient of the Second World War, Leonard Trent was the pilot of a Ventura that was shot down on a bombing raid to Holland in 1943. His VC was in recognition of his actions in pressing on with the raid despite being attacked by fighter planes and subject to heavy anti-aircraft fire. He spent the rest of the war as a POW. The article was expanded in recent weeks and subject to a GA review. Thanks to all those who stop by to review this one. Zawed (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • flying Fairey Battles on photo-reconnaissance missions into Germany Pipe Germany to Nazi Germany.
  • He was shot down over Holland while on a bombing mission This is wrong kinda. If you are referring the Netherlands, then Holland is wrong but, if you are referring the region around Amsterdam (which is within the region Holland) then I reckon you to change it to North-Holland. The region of Holland is split into two provinces so that's why it should have North in it and link it as well.
  • Rephrased to being shot down over Amsterdam. Zawed (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In April 1919 the family relocated to Takaka, in the Golden Bay region Maybe link Golden Bay because I have no clue where that is.
  • a fighter ace of the First World War, and subsequently Link First World War here.
  • Nelson to work with his father As what, dentist?
  • After a time he moved to Wellington, taking up office work again Maybe link the capital here?
  • Trent applied for a short-term commission in the Royal Air Force (RAF) Wait a sec, why the Royal Air Force and not the New Zealand Air Force? Had the Royal Air Force still power in the country's air force?
  • Power is not quite the right word to explain it but at the time there was avery strong sense of relationship between NZ and Britain, so a lot of NZers would still think it patriotic to join the RAF. Plus the RNZAF didn't have aircraft like Spitfires and Hurricanes at the time so that is likely to be a factor for someone wanting to fly "glamourous" planes. In the late 30's, the RAF offered a number of schemes to attract good personnel from the Dominions. There was a benefit to the RNZAF because the British Government paid it for the initial training that was done in NZ. Zawed (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • undertook flight training at the Royal New Zealand Air Force's Link the air force.
  • Slightly rephrased and linked. Zawed (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He gained his wings on 12 May 1938 and a month later The aircrew brevet's article said to me that the word "wings" is colloquially is that true?
  • Yes, it is more a colloquialism, a much more familiar term than "aircrew brevet". Zawed (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The squadron returned to operations when the Germans Pipe Germans to Nazi Germany.
  • No. 487 (NZ) Squadron, based at Feltwell in Norfolk Link Norfolk.
  • were thrown clear at 7,000 feet and became prisoners of war (POW) No metric units?
  • Added a conversion to metres. Zawed (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the commander of No. 2 Group, Air Vice Marshal Basil Embry No hyphen for Air Vice Marshal?
  • I don't know or the Kiwis use postwar or post-war? While in British English per Ngram uses more post-war?
  • NZ would follow British English so have hyphenated
  • squadron was dispatched to Malta due to the outbreak The island of Malta or the country of Malta if the country then maybe pipe it to Crown Colony of Malta.
  • As the Queen never visited Washington during his tenure there Add D.C. here.
  • There is a memorial to Trent at the airport in Nelson, his home town Is there a link for the memorial?
  • No, it is a pretty small memorial. Zawed (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Royal New Zealand Air Force (1946–47)" --> "Royal New Zealand Air Force (1946–1947)"

Okay I think that's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CPA-5, thanks for the review. I have responded above. Zawed (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CPA-5, anything to add? With your support this is otherwise looking ready for promotion. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry PM, I strangely don't get notifications with a u-ping or whatever it is called. It makes it odder now I get notifications from discussions where barely my name is included. I've changed it to support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

Great work as usual Zawed. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • On 23 May, casualties in the squadron saw Trent promoted to acting flight lieutenant and taking command of one of the flights of the squadron - this is a bit repetitive (with "the squadron" being repeated")
  • Rephrased, how is it now? Zawed (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Operation Training Squadron" - should this be "Operational Training Squadron"?
  • Yes, this did seem off but the source said "Operation". However, on the following page, it says "Operational" so I've gone with that and extended the cited page range. Zawed (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know why Trent transferred to the RNZAF in 1945?
  • Pay and promotion prospects; I have added this in. Zawed (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know why Trent moved to Western Australia? As he would have been 50 years old at the time, he may have done so for work.
  • The article originally referred to him working as an executive for MacRobertson Miller Airlines. However, this is not mentioned in the Sanders or Te Awa biographies and I wasn't able to find a reliable source so excised this information. There are plenty of mentions of him online working for the airline but from what I've looked at, these are simply mirrors of the original Wikipedia article. Zawed (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I just checked the Australian Trove newspaper archive, but this is the only mention of him in Australia and it's not very useful. The folks at the very active WikiProject Western Australia might be able to check local WA resources ahead of FAC. Nick-D (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a few minor edits to simplify the wording - for instance, removing "of the"-type constructions Nick-D (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D, thanks for stopping by and reviewing this one. I have responded as above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all. I'm now pleased to support this nomination Nick-D (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

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

  • could you add something about his DFC to the lead?
  • what sort of aircraft did No. 487 (NZ) Squadron fly?
  • Venturas - have added to lead. Zawed (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link prisoner of war
  • say the Bristol Blenheim IV was a light bomber
  • link Flight (military unit)
  • suggest saying what Operation Dynamo was
  • was athe squadron leader?
  • muchmany of its flying personnel
  • link flight commander
  • many crews members were novices
  • link formation flying
  • Eindhoven in the Netherlands
  • link Low Countries
* Done. Zawed (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • diversion tofor another raid
* Done. Zawed (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Czechoslovakia (because it doesn't exist anymore)
* Done. Zawed (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the infobox, suggest Fremantle Cemetery, Western Australia
  • RAF Wittering is listed in the infobox, but is not in the body
  • It is in the body although I had pipelinked it so the RAF didn't show. I've rephrased it now as I noticed that the word "station" was usd in close succession. Zawed (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I could find, great work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Peacemaker67, I have responded as above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, a pleasure. Nice work as always. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Trent Grindell Turnbull IWM HU 81283.jpg needs to reflect that the assumption is that it was taken by a RAF member because it was taken on a RAF base. Otherwise the fact that it was created by the UK government could be questioned. Something along the lines of that used on File:487 Squadron RNZAF NCOs RAF Methold early 1943.JPG, "Photograph taken by service personnel employed by the UK government in the course of their duties and thus subject to UK copyright law as under PD-UKGov."
  • The other photographs are appropriately licensed and their captions are fine.

That's it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added a clarifying statement to the "Trent Grindell Turnbull" photograph. Thanks for looking at this. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • All references are RS and formatted appropriately. For consistency, I would use sfn for Hayward 2000 (the entry in the NZ DNB) but that's only aesthetics. Kges1901 (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2020 (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.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Cadet Nurse Corps Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Annexation of the Leeward Islands Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Tucker (DD-374) Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French battleship Mirabeau Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Spanish battleship Alfonso XIII Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Totem Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Staurakios Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Percy Storkey Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Herennius Etruscus Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Yugoslav torpedo boat T6 Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Black Buck Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Charles Duke Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/James Allen Ward Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Yugoslav destroyer Zagreb Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Johnny Checketts Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of pre-dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/British nuclear tests at Maralinga Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fatimid conquest of Egypt Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1974 White House helicopter incident Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/47th (London) Infantry Division Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French battleship Suffren Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Gneisenau Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Marshall's Elm Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS O'Flaherty Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ba Congress Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/The Holocaust in Slovakia

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/2020/Promoted&oldid=997302328"