Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2024/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 Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Plum Point Bend[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Battle of Plum Point Bend (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A fairly confusing ACW naval action. The Confederates launch a surprise attack against early riverine ironclads using "cottonclad" ramships. The plan actually worked because the Union vessels were largely unprepared. While two ironclads were sunk, the action accomplished nothing of long-term significance and the two ironclads were back in service in less than two months. Hog Farm Talk 01:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

This article is in great shape, and is an interesting read. I have the following comments:

  • "had pushed downriver to Fort Pillow." - I'd suggest giving a rough location for the fort
    • Added
  • "and had developed a routine of having a single mortar boat guarded by an ironclad take a position further downriver to bombard the fort, while the rest of the fleet was upriver" - this is a bit hard to follow
    • rephrased
  • "The naval component of the Federal effort was commanded by Andrew H. Foote" - did he hold a military rank? If so, please add it
    • Added
  • I'd suggest moving the map into the 'battle' section, and/or left justifying it: it appears in the section after the battle on my monitor
    • Have moved this around a bit; both the map and the Currier & Ives image were added by another editor and I never got around to re-arranging
  • The para starting with 'A shot from Carondelet' is somewhat lengthy
    • Split
  • I'd suggest swapping the order of the second and third last paras of the article. Nick-D (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nick-D I'm not sure that I agree with this one - at least to me, it makes sense to finish all discussion of Plum Point Bend before moving on to the rest of the campaign for control of the upper Mississippi, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. Hog Farm Talk 01:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sorry for my very slow response here. My comments have been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 - Thanks for taking a look! I've fixed the licensing. Hog Farm Talk 23:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good - passing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • The articles uses reputable sources that accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge
  • All sources are well-formatted
  • Spot checks: 6, 7, 22a, 50 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment - I am aware that based on discussions elsewhere, I need to change the nomenclature used here from "Federal" to "Union". I intend on doing this but I am in the process of moving so I won't be able to get to this right away. Hog Farm Talk 23:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pendright[edit]

@Hog Farm: Placeholder - aware of Federal vs. Union Pendright (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Second thoughts: Would you rather I waited until you substitute Union for Federal, or I could do it during the course of my review? Your call! Pendright (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pendright: - either one works for me. I'm out of town for work this week and won't be able to get to anything until late Saturday or maybe even Sunday. I still need to finish up work at Big Black River Bridge too. Hog Farm Talk 00:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Okay, then, I'll substitute them as I progress through the review.
@Hog Farm: I have decided to renege on my offer to review this article. I've changed Federal to Union for only the Lead and Background sections. All the best - Pendright (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I'll get this switched over myself. Hog Farm Talk 23:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Pickersgill-Cunliffe[edit]

To follow. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why don't you just add the location in main text? Would be a useful addition somewhere, surely
    • Done
  • "Union forces commanded captured" something missing here
    • Oops, fixed
  • A word or two as to the relevance of the Tennessee River and Cumberland River to the Mississippi, for the non-American reader?
    • I've rephrased and rearranged some text to try to make it clearer that the fall of these positions forced the Confedertes to withdraw further down the Mississippi
  • "position was captured on April 8"?
    • Done
  • "which was 50 miles (80 km) on the river north of Memphis, Tennessee" this seems a little awkward. Perhaps "which was 50 miles (80km) north of Memphis, Tennessee, on the river"?
    • Done
  • "Foote's Union vessels pursued." Pursued what? You've said that the works the Union just captured were already abandoned
    • Done
  • "Captain Charles Henry Davis took command"
    • Done
  • "The Union ships were known as the Western Flotilla." I feel like this should be mentioned earlier on, feels out of place here
    • This has been moved up to the first paragraph, where Foote is first mentioned
  • Beginning of third background paragraph could be simplified to "Captain James Montgomery and eight cottonclad rams, known as the River Defense Fleet, were located off of Fort Pillow. They were faster..."
    • partially done, although I've kept the reference to vessels being siphoned off elsewhere as I think that is useful
  • Would be useful to mention the size of the Union force, as you do for the Confederates
    • I've indicated the count of ironclads. I'm having trouble finding a source for the total number of auxillary vessels but that's less important as only the ironclads and one of the mortar boats were innolved in this battle
  • While I think cottonclads have been referred to as gunboats, for the sake of consistency in the article I think they should be referred to as cottonclads throughout
    • Done
  • Give M. Jeff Thompson's rank
    • Done
  • Suggest noting that Bragg is one of the cottonclads, as it might be thought that this is a separate vessel for Thompson
    • Done
  • "Confederate vessels passed through Plum Point Bend" this is the first mention of the article namesake. Needs a word or two explaining that (I assume) this is one of the bends in the river which the Union were bombarding from behind. Might be useful to add the location, per infobox, at this point
    • I've tried to elaborate on this a bit
  • "quarter" is naval terminology that needs a link or explanation
    • Linked
  • "The damage forced the vessel out of the action"...because she could not manoeuvre?
    • Yes, added
  • "Union lookouts had spotted"
    • done
  • "third Confederate ship, CSS General Sumter to ram her." comma after Sumter
    • Done
  • "The commander of General Sumter had offered"
    • Done
  • Link boarding
    • Done
  • Give Stembel his rank
    • Done
  • "General Sumter was also badly damaged by a Carondelet shot and forced to withdraw from the battle; the fire came from Carondelet"
    • Done
  • "intending to ram it", "badly damaging it" you generally use the female pronoun
    • Fixed here, and at several other places in the article
  • "badly damaging it. The blow badly damaged the ironclad's bow" overly repetitive
    • I've rephrased this part a little bit
  • "The commander of General Earl Van Dorn was wounded during the action.[42] General Earl Van Dorn's commander, Captain Isaac Fulkerson" again repetitive, surely this could be merged
    • Rephrased/consolidated some
  • "from both the Confederate vessels" somewhat suggests that she is being fired on by two, rather than three, ships. Suggest removing "both"
    • Removed
  • "and accidental undershots"?
    • Done
  • "The former and Cairo attempted to save Mound City" this suggests you have already mentioned the arrival of Cairo, but you haven't
    • I've clarified a little bit - this was pretty much the first thing Cairo did upon arrival
  • "but Cincinnati was unable to reach the shore and sank in 11 feet (3.4 m) of water" > "but before she could do so sank in 11 feet..."?
    • Done, with a slight variance
  • "the fighting had lasted about 70 minutes"
    • Done
  • "the Cairo, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis"
    • Done
  • "...and St. Louis for their minimal roles in the action." Did St. Louis do anything at all?
    • Not really; I've mentioned in the article now that by the time St. Louis showed up, the Confederates were gone
  • "one sailor was killed"
    • Done
  • "instead of exploding within them" Suggest this change for clarity for the less military-minded reader
    • Done
  • "compared the appearance of the River Defense Fleet's smokestacks after the battle to nutmeg graters." need a word or two more to clarify that this is relation to damage they received, the following sentence doesn't totally manage this
    • I've added a clause
  • "cottoncladding" should this be two words?
    • Maybe? I've split it into two words as Google searching seems to indicate that this does not exist in the one-word form
  • "at the waterlines"
    • Done
  • "except for General Earl Van Dorn"
    • Done
  • Link Union on first lede and main text mention
    • Done
  • "in hopes of" > "in the hope of"
    • Done
  • "Two further Union ironclads were able to steam from the main group upriver"
    • Done
  • "it was later run aground on a shoal, where it sank." pronoun change again
    • This has been fixed
  • Main text says Corinth was abandoned by the Confederates, while lede says it was captured by the Union. These are slightly different events, so suggest going with one or the other description
    • I've tried to clean it up a bit - is this better
  • A word or two in main text about why the loss of Corinth made Pillow untenable?
    • Added
  • Add the names of the commanders to the infobox, as well as the strengths of the fleets engaged
    • Done

Support Looks good to me too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted to A class. Awaiting bot confirmation. Donner60 (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2024 (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 Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Jozo Tomasevich[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Jozo Tomasevich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Jozo Tomasevich was a Yugoslav-American economist and historian whose works on Yugoslavia in WWII continue to be widely cited today despite his first book on the Chetniks being published nearly fifty years ago. It is a tragedy that he died before completing the third volume of his planned series on Yugoslavia in WWII which was to be focussed on the Partisans. Even his second volume had to be published posthumously in 2001, with editing by his daughter. I have used his works right across my WP contributions on WWII on Yugoslavia, and his work forms the foundation on which many more recent historians have built. This is my second nom of a historian of WWII in Yugoslavia after Radoje Pajović which is now an FA. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

I'm surprised that this interesting and accessible article hasn't attracted any reviews so far: here's mine:

  • The first sentence of the lead is rather long - do we need "and after his retirement was appointed professor emeritus of economics at San Francisco State University" in this sentence given that it already establishes that he was an academic?
Excellent point, moved down to near the end of the second para. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence starting with " Positively reviewed by scholars such as " would probably work better as two sentences
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • More broadly, the material in the lead noting reviews of the books seems out of place: just say it was well reviewed or similar
The reason I have included this is the ongoing rejection of Tomasevich's conclusions about the Chetniks by some prominent Serb historians, so I have included some non-Serb reviewers, a Serb historian's review, and a longer-term view for an accurate indication of the appropriate weight for each. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think it's necessary for the lead, as it's meant to summarise the article. The details on who said what are best covered in the body of the article. Nick-D (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He became an American citizen" - do we know when?
I have looked and looked, even finding a reliable source for him being American was hard, so no. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Scholarship' section would benefit by being broken up into sub-sections
OK, I've had a crack at this, see what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be interesting to know how Tomasevich conducted research into Yugoslavia from California: I imagine accessing resources would have been challenging.
He was able to visit Yugoslavia and London to access archives, and both books on WWII have massive bibliographies including captured German and Italian documents held by the US on microfilm. He had great access to the huge Yugoslav archives, and they include a lot of German documents captured by the Partisans late in the war when large numbers of other German documents were lost or destroyed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and as of 2024, remains unpublished" - it's tricky citing statements like this, but the reference here dates from 2003. Nick-D (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have taken out 2024, but it is really WP:BLUE as anyone can search Worldcat for Tomasevich and find it hasn't been published. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Nick, will get onto your comments asap. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much Nick-D. See what you think of my edits? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Nick-D, lead reviews dropped and summarised per your comment above. See what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those changes look good, and I'm happy to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Support from Pendright[edit]

Placeholder - I'll start when the above review is completed. Pendright (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PM - I'm reversing myself and posting my comments at this time. If some overlapping occurs, you have my apology. Regards! Pendright (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Josip "Jozo" Tomasevich (1908 – October 15, 1994; Serbo-Croatian: Josip Tomašević) was an American economist and historian who was a leading expert on the economic and social history of the former Yugoslavia, and after his retirement was appointed professor emeritus of economics at San Francisco State University.
  • was an American economist and historian -> how is this specifically exemplified in the body of the article?
It is from his obituary by Vucinich, in the Legacy section. But I thought it was pretty clear from the descriptions of his work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Thanks for your response. I did not phrase my comment well, so let me try again. He is introduced as an American economist and historian, but all of his works relate to Yugoslavia. In which case-as I see it-Jozo" Tomasevich was an American economist and historian whose specialty was the economic and social history of the former Yugoslavia. I leave this-quibble-to your good judgement? Pendright (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and after his retirement "he" was
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tomasevich was born in the Kingdom of Dalmatia, part of Austria-Hungary, and after completing his schooling, gained a doctorate in economics at the University of Basel in Switzerland.
"he" "earned"
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the mid-1930s, he worked at the National Bank of Yugoslavia in Belgrade and published three well-received books on Yugoslav national debt, fiscal policy, and money and credit, respectively.
  • Should it be "Yugoslav's" national debt...?
Yugoslavia's, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drop the comma after credit
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1938, he moved to the US as the recipient of a two-year Rockefeller fellowship and conducted research at Harvard University before joining the academic staff of Stanford University.
US -> first use?
Okay, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He combined research and teaching there for twenty-five years until his retirement in 1973, broken by a year teaching at Columbia University in 1954.
"which was" broken by a year "of" teaching at
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between 1943 and 1955, Tomasevich published two books on economic matters, one focused on marine resources and the other on the peasant economy of Yugoslavia, both of which were positively reviewed.
Look this version over: Between 1943 and 1955, Tomasevich had two books published on economic matters; one focused on marine resources and the other on the economy of Yugoslavia at the time and both of them received positive reviews.
Yes, almost. Changed slightly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Positively reviewed by scholars such as Phyllis Auty, Alexander Vucinich and John C. Campbell of the Council on Foreign Relations, it was also criticised for bias against Serbs, its length and repetition, by the political scientist Alex N. Dragnich.
  • What was "Positively reviewed"?
  • [but[ it was
  • Drop the comma after repetition
These have been addressed by a suggested change from Nick. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tomasevich died in California in 1994.
Might this sentence be better placed before the sentence begining with 2002?
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It focused on [the] collaboration and the quisling governments in Yugoslavia during the war , with a strong emphasis on the Axis puppet state , [and] the so-called Independent State of Croatia.
Look this over
I think this would change the meaning. the focus on collaborations was across the board, not just the Independent State of Croatia, and that state was the only Axis puppet state, the rest were puppet governments and other collaborationist factions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • Josip "Jozo" Tomašević was born in 1908 in the village of Košarni Do on the Pelješac peninsula in the Kingdom of Dalmatia, part of Austria-Hungary.
"which was" part of
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Košarni Do is near the village of Donja Banda and is today part of the Orebić municipality within the Dubrovnik-Neretva County of Croatia.
"in 2023 was"
I've just gone with dropping "today". This is essentially a WP:BLUE assertion which could change one day, but is unlikely to. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He [Nado] returned to the village in 1894, [and he] married the daughter of his first cousin and worked as a farmer.
Look this over
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1938, he was the recipient of a two-year Rockefeller fellowship and moved to the US,[3] "availing himself of the rich resources of Harvard University".[1]
"and" availing himself
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other brother living in Košarni Do received the share of the fourth brother , who [,] by then[,] was a merchant mariner living in New Zealand.[4]
Look this over
done, thanks, much better. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • His preference was for a position combining teaching and research, so in 1948, he joined the San Francisco State College (later San Francisco State University).
Drop the comma after 1948
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He taught there for twenty-five years until he retired in 1973 – except in 1954 when he taught at Columbia University.[1]
Replace the first he with his name
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarship[edit]

  • According to Vucinich, from when Tomasevich was 25 until his death at 86, he engaged himself in a succession of research projects , some of which [some] were very extensive.
Look this over
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between 1934 and 1938, Tomasevich published three books.
Suggest -> Tomasevich had three books published?
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following year, he published Financijska politika Jugoslavije, 1929–1934 (Fiscal Policy of Yugoslavia, 1929–1934) in Serbo-Croatian, covering much of the same material but more accessible to Yugoslavs.[1]
he "had" published?
tweaked, but done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 1940 review of the book in Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, by Professor Mirko Lamer – who later served with the United Nations as an expert at the Food and Agriculture Organization – described Novac i kredit as an important work that filled a large gap in Yugoslav economic literature, and gave a vivid picture of then-current economic theory.[9]
and "it" gave
tweaked in a similar way. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irwin T. Sanders of the Department of Sociology at the University of Kentucky reviewed the book in 1956 and stated that it was "the best book available for anyone wishing to understand the socio-economic pre-Communist background of Yugoslavia", contained realistic evaluations of the peasant political parties, and concluded that "there is little question about the soundness of his economic analysis or his description of the participation of the peasant in national life".
Think about splitting this 72 word sentence?
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first volume focused on the Chetnik movement led by Draža Mihailović, and [which was] subtitled The Chetniks , [and] appeared in 1975.
Look this over
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Auty praised Tomasevich's detachment from the subject, and stated that it was "likely to remain the standard book on this subject for a long time."
and "she" stated
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second volume of his planned trilogy – War and Revolution in Yugoslavia 1941–1945: Occupation and Collaboration – concentrated on collaboration and the quisling governments in Yugoslavia during the war,[1] with a strong emphasis on the Axis puppet state, the so-called Independent State of Croatia led by Ante Pavelić, the head of the fascist Ustaše movement, and was published posthumously in 2001 with editing from his daughter Neda.
Could you split this 67 word sentence?
Yes, definitely. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a review of the book published the following year, the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst lecturer and German historian Klaus Schmider described Tomasevich's grasp of the sources in five languages as "stupendous",[19] and [they] observed that the result was well worth the twenty-six-year wait between the volumes.
Add "they"
he, but done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third volume in the planned trilogy, which was to cover the Partisans, was 75 per cent complete at the time of his death,[1] and as of 2024 , [it] remains unpublished.[19]
Suggest the above change
This was changed by a response to an earlier review comment. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is it for now! Pendright (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again, Pendright! Your reviews always result in improvements to the grammar and clarity of articles I have worked on. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting - Thanks! BTW, I left one quibble

Image review - pass[edit]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned.

Source review - pass[edit]

  • The article/list is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style
  • All claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.
  • Formatting is fine
  • Spot checks: 1a, 2, 12a, 12b, 18 - okay.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

I will review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 23:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In 1938, he was the recipient of a two-year Rockefeller fellowship and moved to the US,[3] and "availing himself of the rich resources of Harvard University"." - I don't know that this is quite grammatical
Absolutely. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know why he moved all the way across the country in '54 to teach for a year at Columbia?
No, I have seen nothing in any sources that mentions his motive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a more recent source to support that the work is still unpublished? I imagine that there probably isn't, but its worth asking I guess
Other than a link to a search page on Worldcat, I don't think so (and I'm not sure that would work anyway). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work as usual; I anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 00:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Hog Farm! See what you think about the last point. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current status quo is better than a worldcat link. Supporting, with the caveat that I'm not familiar at all with the scholarship of this area and that I don't read any languages other than English. Hog Farm Talk 03:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donner60: A class pass[edit]

Promoted article to A class. Donner60 (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2024 (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) 01:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Fort McKavett State Historic Site[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Vami IV (talk)

Fort McKavett State Historic Site (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is another Texas fort and, briefly, island of Anglo-American settlement in the West Texas plains. Here's to a sixth A-class! –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support[edit]

I'll review this later this week. Hog Farm Talk 01:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Texas was annexed by the United States of America in 1845,[4] which led to the start of the Mexican-American War the next year" - isn't this a bit of the over-simplification of the causes of the Mexican War? Maybe which was one of the main causes of the Mexican-American War the next year or something like that
  • Yes and no. Annexation itself can be said to be and to not be the main cause of the war, because what Texas was was a breakaway Mexican territory that legitimized its independence with a treaty that the post-pre-Santa Anna Mexican government refused to recognize. And then after annexation, Polk parked US Army soldiers in disputed territory to back up the claim to the Nueces strip. The Mexican Army attacking those soldiers was what enabled Polk to secure war from Congress and toss Mexico out of what is now the state of Texas. But while that could be considered the cause, those troops were there because of the annexation. Suffice to say, I believe the current wording of "led to the ... war" is apt. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking more of the idea that I've read (don't remember where) that the US was basically looking for a pretext to fight Mexico and then get a landgrab after the war but that's well beyond the scope of this article; what's in the article is fine. Hog Farm Talk 01:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in the treaty that ended the war in 1848 annexed what is presently the Southwestern United States.[5] The next year, gold was discovered in California, enticing an unprecedented number of white migrants to go west, across Texas" - I'd recommend tweaking this a little bit. The major immigration happened in the following year (1849), but wasn't the Sutter's Mill gold find in 1848, the same year as the treaty?
  • " In 1851, General Persifor Frazer Smith, commander of the Department of Texas, " - it is possible to use Smith's exact rank? While this wasn't a formal rank in the US Army in 1851, simply "General" is a term that formally refers to a specific four-star rank today (and also in CS Army).
  • Yes, I think so. According to the Handbook of Texas, he should be a brevetted Major General in 1851 (added). Ah, hm. Old Army in Texas, page 114, lists Smith as a Colonel. 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
  • "In 1855, the US Army signed a 20-year lease of the land the fort occupied " - do the sources indicate if this is just a paper formality, intergovernmental dealings, or did somebody actually own this land at the time?
  • I believe it was owned but I no longer have Sullivan 1981 to hand. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't seem overly important; I checked the libraries local to me to see if any of them had a copy but none do. Hog Farm Talk 01:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • as part of Wikipedia Library Project MUSE, The Old Army in Texas: A Research Guide to the U.S. Army in Nineteenth Century Texas by Wooster & Smith has some more detail on units stationed at the fort - it gives a listing of what units provided the garrison in each year
  • Oh, I have that book now! I'll see what I can sprinkle in with it. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah yes. As I recall, this was the only source I am aware that alleges that McKavett was a PoW camp. Every other one I consulted said that the Confederate/Texas frontier forces were minuscule and fairly mobile. They did camp at abandoned US Army forts during the war, but didn't dig back in at most. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • this by North Texas University has a throwaway mention of "Fort McKavett [...] was operated briefly as a Civil War POW camp" but no footnote of course. That Texas state historic site website is sourced to someone's 1890s memoir so not great there. I've searched in the relevant volume of the ORs and McKavett isn't mentioned by name. Some stuff that I wouldn't consider to be reliable enough suggests that the POW camp aspect was holding one company of the 8th Infantry for a couple months. This is barely verifiable and quite miniscule so on second thought I don't think this warrants a mention given the shaky level of sourcing that can be turned up. Hog Farm Talk 01:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fort McKavett was nominated for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places on June 18, 1969, and was included on July 6, 1971" - infobox has July 14, 1971

I think that's it from me for a general content perspective. Hog Farm Talk 15:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vami, I've left a couple replies above - I'm fine with the article as is on both points. Please let me know when you're done looking over the Wooster & Smith source. Hog Farm Talk 01:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All done now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 15:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias[edit]

  • Consider archiving online sources.
  • "Frazer, Robert Walter (1965)" pre-dates ISBNs. It looks like the version you are citing is a 1972 reprint of the 1965 edition, so should take |year=1972 |orig-year=1965.
  • MOS:YEARRANGE prefers year ranges to be written out in full, ie. YYYY–YYYY, not YYYY–YY; this should be changed in various places.
  • Rephrase to avoid the WP:EASTEREGG link on "a presidio": I expected it to wikilink to a page explaining what a presidio was, but instead it took me to the specific one.
  • "Construction of the post began immediately and saw rapid progress as though there were.." Need a comma after "as".
  • "..for Texas settlements." Would this not be better written as "..for Texan settlements."?
  • "..and the return of the US Army to Texas as on June 19, 1865.." I don't think the "as" is needed here?
  • "..Sherman narrowly missed being killed.." Another WP:EASTEREGG link.
  • "..who arrived at the fort in 1881." To help with clarity and tense, recommend "..who had arrived.."
  • "..established a 1 mile (1.6 km) to its north." Either remove the "a" or the "1".
  • "..but wound up with.." isn't very encyclopaedic language.
  • "..for Fort McKavett C.S.A..." Do we know what C.S.A. stands for? And unless there is an exceptional reason, space out the initials per our MOS.
  • "..during its military operated were.." This should be "operation", not "operated".
  • I find the title of the article curious; the vast majority of the article is about Fort McKavett, only the Preservation section and the first sentence of the subsequent Grounds and architecture section seem to be about Fort McKavett State Historic Site. It doesn't affect the ACR, but I'd recommend a page move once it is complete.

That's it from me. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • All done. Some embarrassing mistakes you highlighted here. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 07:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I made a small edit to fix the Frazer short citation. The year range issue remains outstanding, however as the A-class criteria states "does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant", I'm happy to support this irrespective. Nice work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Four images only:

- all images are appropriately licenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • The articles uses reputable sources that accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge
  • All sources are well-formatted
  • Spot checks: 2, 9a, 65a, 69 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: - Vami IV has sadly passed on - User talk:Vami IV#Condolences. I will try to take this one on; it is in very good shape and shouldn't require much more work for promotion. Hog Farm Talk 19:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you, HF. Put yourself down as co-nom; I think we'd also need to discount your support if you take over, unless any other coords have another opinion -- if so you could just collapse your comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under the circumstances, I don't see the need for this. The support can stand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zawed – comments Support[edit]

Feedback as follows:

  • In the First Occupation by the US Army section, it says "In 1855, the US Army signed a 20-year lease of the land the fort occupied...": who was the land leased from?
  • Construction of the post began immediately: because of the different dates mentioned in the first paragraph, it is not immediately clear when this was. Could we say something like "Once the site on the south bank of the San Saba had been decided upon, construction of the post began immediately..."?
    • Or is it referring to immediately after the lease had been signed? I don't know. Alexander and Utley only supports the " as though there were no local civilian professionals to assist construction, there was a local abundance of usable stone and timber" part of this sentence and I can't access Sullivan.Hog Farm Talk 14:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Use by Confederate Texas, 1861–65 section, it says "...career soldier Benjamin McCulloch. McCulloch passed...": could this be rephrased to avoid back-to-back mention of McCulloch?
    • I've changed where the sentences split and have done some rewording to avoid this. Hog Farm Talk 14:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...began regular patrols for and pursuit of raiding indigenous peoples: this "for and" wording seems really odd to me.
    • Comment: I suspect the "patrols for and purusit" means something like "patrols to locate and pursue". FWIW Donner60 (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've gone with an adjusted version of Donner's phrasing (patrols to locate and/or pursue). Hog Farm Talk 14:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...subsequently issued orders for more aggressive measures against the Plains Nations. Maybe put a link to [Plains Indians] on Plains Nations?
  • The "Grounds and architecture" section seems odd to me. The first sentence could finish off the previous section, while the rest could be integrated into the "Use as military outpost" section.

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Please note that a response to Zawed's comments should bring this one to a favorable close. Donner60 (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: - all the rest are addressed except for the first two, which I cannot resolve without access to Sullivan. Unfortunately, the nominator has passed on and the nearest publicly held copy of Sullivan to me is about 150 miles away. Hog Farm Talk 14:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: @Zawed: I have added a ref note, citing the 1934 Crimmins article, that several persons claimed ownership of the land but the government paid a man named Robinson for the lease.
Since the camp had been moved several times, and the sentence about construction "following immediately" is in the text right after the mention of the lease, it might be logical to assume that construction on the fort did not begin until after the lease was signed. Some doubt may be shed on this becaue Crimmins wrote a series of articles in The Southwestern Historical Quarterly from 1947 to 1950 in which he provided edited notes from Lt. Colonel W. G. Freeman's Report on the Eighth Military Department from his inspection trip in 1853. In Crimmins, M. L. “W. G. Freeman’s Report on the Eighth Military Department (Continued).” The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 3, 1950, pp. 308–19. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30235631. Accessed 17 Mar. 2024. Page 308, Freeman's report on Fort McKavett, which he inspected on August 19, 1853. On this page Freeman notes that lumber has been cut and within 30 miles all necessary wood for construction can be found. Yet on pages 308-309, Freeman said the buildings "are put up of stone."
A camp being established, a few miles away, in March 1852 and then moved would appear to rule out a March 1852 date for the beginning of construction. Some doubt on the 1855 date for construction of the fort not beginning until after the lease was signed does not appear to correspond with Freeman's language about stone buildings being put up. But I note another possibility that I can surmise in the next comment.
Perhaps the construction after the signing date after the lease could be based on the full structures with all the wood needed for completion installed not being started until after the lease was signed which could justify the 1855 date, though the inspection report could be read to specify an interim date.
This is the only information I could find about the date of beginning of the construction. The bottom line is that I could not find what I would consider a definite, specific statement concerning the date construction began. Maybe it is given in Sullivan or some other source - or maybe what I found is all that can be found and the date was some time between March 1852 and the signing of the lease. Donner60 (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is apparently a copy of Sullivan at a library near-ish me. What pages do you need? Schierbecker (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think page 10 is the relevant one - who the land was leased from, and what "Construction of the post began immediately " is immediately after. Hog Farm Talk 19:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will try to make a trip tomorrow. If not, next weekend. Schierbecker (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zawed: - Thanks to Schierbecker I've been able to address this more clearly. Hog Farm Talk 01:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good. I saw a note had been added but the referencing style was inconsistent so I sorted this (stuffed it up initially!). I have added my support now, it is good to see this one get across the line. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2024 (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 Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Big Black River Bridge[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Battle of Big Black River Bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A brief, and rather lopside, battle during the Vicksburg campaign. The Confederate commander, Pemberton, was concerned about Loring's divison, which had been isolated from the rest of the army during the retreat from the Battle of Champion Hill the day before. To hold a bridgehead east of the Big Black River, Pemberton positioned Bowen's division, which had been mauled the day before, and then Vaughn's brigade of inexperienced conscripts from a region hostile to the Confederacy. McClernand's Union corps appears and deploys in front of the Confederate line. One Union brigade commander on the far right, Lawler, moves his troops into an old river meander, and then unleashes a 3-minute charge that routs Vaughn. The remainder of the Confederates fled to avoid being cut off, and roughly 1,750 Confederates and 18 cannon are captured. Hog Farm Talk 01:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias[edit]

Nice to see you around and submitting articles for review again!

  • Ref #57 should have a "p" rather than "pp".
    • Fixed
  • Ref #64 should have a "pp" rather than "p".
    • Fixed
  • Ref #83 should have a "pp" rather than "p".
    • Fixed
  • Consider archiving online sources.
    • Done
  • "..important city of Vicksburg, Mississippi was still.." While I know you think MOS:GEOCOMMA is a "load of crock", it remains part of the MOS :P
    • Added
  • "A Union attack on December 29, was defeated decisively.."}} No need for that comma.
    • Removed; I find myself guessing a lot as to if a comma is needed or not
  • Conversely, I think "On April 29, the Union Navy's Mississippi Squadron commanded by David Dixon Porter attempted to bombard.." would benefit from commas around "commanded by David Dixon Porter".
    • commas added
  • "..on May 14, with the Union taking the city.." Consider rephrasing to avoid the noun plus -ing construction.
    • Repheased
  • "..to prevent Loring from being cut off of from the main.."}} To many words. Remove the of?
    • Removed "of"
  • Wl "enfilade" to Enfilade and defilade
    • Done
  • "This position was manned by.." This sentence feels weird for two reasons; first starting a paragraph like this makes it feel like a run-on from the previous paragraph, so maybe the paragraph structure needs adjusting. Secondly, the final sentence of the previous paragraph also started "This position.."
    • Rephrased
  • "..considered this unit to be his best troops.." Maybe switch "to be" to "to contain" or "to comprise".
    • This has been rephrased already by Nick-D to remove "troops" - is it better now
  • "Vaughn's men and the 4th Mississippi were position in an area.." Should be "positioned".
    • Fixed
  • "..with Benton's men taking up.." Again, consider rephrasing to avoid the noun plus -ing construction.
    • Rephrased
  • "One of Green's regiments, the 1st Missouri Cavalry Regiment (dismounted) had remained.."}} Needs a comma after "(dismounted)".
    • Added
  • "Lindsey advanced his brigade ahead along the railroad.." "ahead" feels redundant to "advanced" (particularly as it goes on to say "placing his men ahead of the rest of the Union line."
    • Removed "ahead"
  • "..and had three regiments |}the.." Stray code, should it be an endash to match the one later?
    • Fixed; that's what happens when you type {{end}} instead of {{snd}}
  • Wikilink "swale"; I had no idea what it meant.
    • I've rephrased to avoid the word - I wasn't using it as a technical term and instead in a sense of a generic depression in the ground. The link for it uses it as more of a technical term, so I don't really want to link it. I guess maybe it's an Americanism?
  • "This advance was accomplished without significant numbers of casualties." You could probably get rid of "numbers of" if you wanted.
    • Done
  • "..with men either running away or surrendering." Again, consider rephrasing to avoid the noun plus -ing construction.
    • Done
  • "..which has been positioned.." Should be "had", not "has".
    • Fixed
  • Switched back up to the lead: "After defeating Confederate forces in several battles intermediate battles.." Too many words.
    • Removed a stray word

A nice piece of work. Nothing major identified, just copy edits really. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: - Thanks for the review! Replies are above - everything should be addressed now. As is probably obvious, grammar/syntax/spelling is not my strong suit. Hog Farm Talk 05:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, nice work, I'm happy with the changes made. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

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

  • "Bowen's men had been roughly handled at Champion Hill" - I'd suggest using more specific language here
    • I've clarified this
  • "Pemberton decided that Johnston's orders were not compatible with previous directives that Pemberton had received" - I'd suggest replacing the second 'Pemberton' with 'he' or similar. More broadly, 'Pemberton' probably appears too many times in this para.
    • I've edited out three of the uses of Pemberton in this paragraph
  • "from a region disloyal to the Confederacy" - perhaps say where
    • Clarified - East Tennessee
  • "Two cannons positioned themselves " - I'd suggest tweaking this to note that the guns 'were positioned'
  • "Union casualties were 279 men" - was this the total killed, wounded and prisoners?
    • Yes, I have noted this
  • The article notes the poor state of the Confederate force, and it would be helpful to note somewhere that the Union force was of a much higher quality to help explain the very lopsided result of this battle. Nick-D (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nick-D: - I haven't seen much in the literature discussing the state of the Union forces at Big Black River bridge (and none of the sources seem to know at all what Union numerical strength was, as none of the sources I've used and a few others I didn't provide a figure). I've clarified this a bit - Bowen's men were Pemberton's elite troops, but were badly exhausted. The ensuing rout seems to be simply due to the attack striking Vaughn's men, who really shouldn't have been put in a key rear guard situation anyway. Hog Farm Talk 20:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. Sorry for the slow response here - I thought I'd responded last week. Nick-D (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JJE[edit]

Didn't notice anything particularly problematic (are books the only sources available?) but "Grant's 12-year old son Fred was wounded in the leg while following the pursuit of the routed Confederates" makes me kind of wonder what a child was doing in this war zone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - Yes, books seem to be the only sources (I've checked JSTOR and Project MUSE for journal articles and didn't see anything useful), which is fairly common for coverage of the Vicksburg campaign - the best stuff is all in books. As to Fred - I've added a brief bit explaining that he followed his dad through the whole campaign. The 1860s certainly were a different time - John Clem was a non-commissioned officer at age 12. Charles Edwin King was mortally wounded at Antietam at age 13. The Confederates had an organized unit of high schoolers charge a battery at the Battle of New Market. Hog Farm Talk 20:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: For your infomation: Child soldiers in the American Civil War Pendright (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

All okay Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Further reading uses a different style from Sources
    • Switched over to match
  • "Campbell, CA" Can we write the name of the state in full? American state abbreviations can be very confusing.
    • I've actually removed this one; a review of the table of contents suggests that none of the essays in this work deal directly with this battle
  • Link Jay Luvaas
    • Done
  • Sources are of good quality.
  • Spot checks not done.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: - thanks for the review! I've addressed the various concerns. Hog Farm Talk 19:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good - passing - great work! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright[edit]

@Hog Farm: I expect to start in a few days! Pendright (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I leave you with a passel of comments and look forward to your responses. Pendright (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • During the American Civil War, the city of Vicksburg, Mississippi, was a key point on the Mississippi River.
Since the ACW is spelled out in the previous sentence could abbreviate it to 'war' here
Done Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On April 30, 1863, a Union army commanded by Major General Ulysses S. Grant began crossing onto the east side of the Mississippi River.
Why - add just a bit of context?
I've added a bit - is this better? Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Yes - Pendright (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • After [engaging and] defeating Confederate forces in several intermediate battles, Grant's army defeated Lieutenant General John C. Pemberton's Confederates at the decisive Battle of Champion Hill on May 16.
Consider the above change
Done Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One division of Pemberton's army, commanded by Major General William W. Loring, had become cut off from Pemberton's main body during the retreat from Champion Hill.
Consider this version: During the retreat from Champion Hill, one division of Pemberton's army, commanded by Major General William W. Loring, was cutoff from Pemberton's main body.
Mostly done - I've been under the impression that "cutoff" is a noun, and "cut off" as two words is correct for when it is being used as a verb. I may be wrong though. Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Your impression is correct - my apology! Pendright (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pemberton did not know of the location of Loring's division, and [he] held a bridg[e]head on the east side of the Big Black River on the morning of May 17 to cover Loring's anticipated withdrawal across the river [on the morning of May 17].
Consider the above changes
done Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Union Brigadier General Michael Kelly Lawler advanced his troops into an old meander in advance of the main Union line on the north end of the battlefield.
advanced his troops to an old meander on the river?
Well, the meander wasn't "on" the river anymore. It was formerly part of the river but was by then no longer part of the river. I'm not sure what the best phrasing for this is. Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>As a verb, my dictionary says, meander is
a river or road that follows a winding course.
<>As a noun, my dictionary says, meander is
a winding curve or bend of a river or road.
If either definition fits as it's now phrased, so be il. If not, rephrase it as you understand either definition. Pendright (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. I see the issue now. Meander scar is a more accurate description of the geographic feature in question, so I've made changes in the article to refelct meander scar, not meander, which should resolve the issue
<>Great! Pendright (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Th[e]is withdrawal became chaotic and roughly 1,750 Confederate soldiers and 18 cannons were captured; with the cannons [were] captured due to an error that left their [because the teams of horses [horse-drawn cannons were erronouesly] positioned on the other side of the Big Black River.
  • Consider the above changes
  • Partially done, except for the last part - the cannons were where they were intended to be; it was the horses that were out of place
<>Okay Pendright (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number reported under "Aftertnath" is 1,751?
  • I've used this number in the lead now
  • The surviving Confederate soldiers entered the fortifications at Vicksburg, Mississippi, and the siege of Vicksburg began the next day[;] , [it] end[ed] ing in [the] a Confederate surrender on July 4, [1863].
Consider the above changes
Done

Background

  • The strategically important city of Vicksburg, Mississippi, was still in Confederate hands, [and it served] serving as a strong defensive position that commanded the river and pr[e]vented the Union from separating the two halves of the Confederacy.[4]
Consider the above changes
Done
  • An attempt to cut Williams's Canal across a meander of the river in June and July, bypassing Vicksburg, failed.[7][8]
Consider: An attempt during June and July to cut-across Williams's Canal, a meander in the river, that bypassed Vicksburg failed.
I don't think I agree with this one. The proposed phrasing could suggest that the canal itself was a meander, which it wasn't
<>I stand corrected!Pendright (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grant ordered a retreat after a supply depot and part of his supply line were destroyed during the Holly Springs Raid on December 20 and Forrest's West Tennessee Raid.
  • Since Grant did not order a retreat until after the his supply lines were destroyed this might be a better way to phrase it?
  • I don't think I'm understanding what the needed change is here
<>My point is that readers are told he ordered a retreat before they knew why. If you are more comfortable with it as is, let it stand. Pendright (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-arranged things. Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the date apply to both raids?
  • Rephrased a bit
  • [Then] A [a]fter diverting up the Yazoo River, Sherman's men began skirmishing with Confederate soldiers [who were] defending a line of hills above the Chickasaw Bayou.
Consider the above changes
Done
  • The advance along the west bank of the Mississippi began on March 29, and [it] was spearheaded by Major General John A. McClernand's [XIII Corps] troops , the XIII Corps.
Consider the above changes
Done

Prelude'

  • On April 29, the Union Navy's Mississippi Squadron, commanded by David Dixon Porter, attempted to bombard the Confederate defenses at Grand Gulf, Mississippi, but the resulting Battle of Grand Gulf failed to drive the Confederates away.
attempted [?] to bombard
rephrased
  • On the morning of May 12, McPherson's encountered Confederate troops near Raymond, Mississippi, bringing on the Battle of Raymond.
McPherson's or McPherson?
I was missing a word here
<>Okay! Pendright (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A delaying action was fought on May 14.[26]
A bit of context here would help?
I've added some context for this
  • However, Johnston then marched his army away from the area in which a combination with Pemberton could easily be made.
Could "have been" easily made
Corrected
  • While Pemberton favored making a stand behind the Big Black River, he was convinced by some of his subordinate officers to make an offensive strike towards where Grant's supply line was believed to be.[29]
Is towards necessary?
Removed Hog Farm Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pemberton did not know that Grant had forgone utilizing a traditional line of communications during his movement inland.[30]
  • What is the significance of this to readers
  • I've tried to rephrase this - essentially Pemberton was trying to attack something that didn't actually exist Hog Farm Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence above does not seem to transition well with the one below?
  • I've tried to ease the transition a bit - is it better now? Hog Farm Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Pendright (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the Confederates began a difficult march, Grant moved west in three columns towards Edwards.[31]
Why was the march difficult?
Bad roads and a washed-out bridge - I've added this Hog Farm Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Good! Pendright (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle

  • [In preparing for what was likely to transoire,] Pemberton had a portion of his army hold a [the] line east of the Big Black River , in order to prevent Loring from being cut off from the main Confederate body at the crossing.
  • cutoff is one word
  • What crossing?
  • The river crossing, have clarified that in the article text Hog Farm Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In early May[37] the Confederate defense line had been laid out by Samuel H. Lockett.[38]
  • defense line, or defensive line?
  • Change had been to was
  • The works were made of cotton bales and dirt.
  • works seems more like a collective noun?
  • The defensive line of the previous sentence seems to be the works in this sentence, and the works is also used in some sentences that follow - in which case readers need some clarity of the term.
  • I've tried to rephrase some of the usages of "works" to make this a little clearer Hog Farm Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Great!Pendright (talk)
  • To the south lay a body of water named Gin Lake[,] ; the Confederate right flank was at the lake , with the line running north to the Big Black River, which made a bend east of the bridge across the Big Black River.
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The [tracks] path of the railroad ran on a raised [roadbed] embankment.
  • Consider the above changes
  • I'm unable to find how this sentence relaates to any other sentence, fact or idea?
  • I think it's helpful to describe the effects of the railroad on the terrain of the field of battle, but I'm okay with removing it if you feel strongly that it is irrelevant Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Confederate line was just west of the bayou, and trees were felled at the bayou to form abatis.
"an" abatis
Done Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bowen commanded this 5,000-man force, which he deemed insufficent to strongly man the entire Confederate defensive works.[44]
insufficent -> sp?
Good catch - I wish there was a spell check feature in the wikitext window Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Confederates had 18 cannon.[35]
Why is cannon sigular?
Not sure, changed. Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vaughn's men and the 4th Mississippi were positioned in an area north of the railroad where the enemy was least expected to attack, and Brigadier General Martin E. Green's brigade held the far left.[49]
Change enemy to the Union
Done Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Confederates were forced to retreat, they would have [had] to cross open ground to the bridge and Dot, which would become bottlenecks in a retreat.
Consider the above chabge
I'm not sure that fits the tense structure of the rest of the sentence, although my grasp of grammar isn't always the best (thank you, Missouri public schools system) Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early on the morning of May 17, McClernand's troops advanced through Edwards, and then encountered the Confederate line.
Drop the comma after Edwards or add they after then
Comma removed Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Illinoisans encountered the Confederate lines,[51] and then took up position in the woods facing the north end of the Confederate line.
  • Add "they" atter and
  • took up "a" position
  • Benton's men took up a position in the fields east of the woods to on the Union right, and Brigadier General Michael Kelly Lawler's brigade formed south of the road.[52]
is it "to" or "on'
"on"; corrected. Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This movement worried Carr, who shifted Lawler to Benton's right, while Brigadier General Peter J. Osterhaus's division deployed to the south.
Drop the comma after Carr
done Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two cannons positioned themselves in a small clearing between the right of the woods and the Big Black River, with the 22nd Iowa Infantry Regiment in support.
  • Two cannons positioned themselves -> how can this be?
  • "and" with the
  • This position allowed Lawler to enfilade the Confederate position east of the bayou, as well as part of the primary defensive works.[60][61]
Instead of enfilade, how about the ordinary words of a dictionary: direct a volley of gunfire along the length of a target, or something similar?
I don't know. I think it's good to use technical terms when appropriate. I've added another link to enfilade here, as I think the duplicate link is excusable. Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Let it stand, but Wikipedia tells us to be clear, concise, and reader friendly. Plain english should be used without jargon. Pendright (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two regiments sent from Garrard's brigade to the right took the position previously occupired by the 22nd Iowa, who [and they] also moved in[on]to the meander.
Consider the above changes
Done, except for the into/onto; I think that part works better as is with the feature identified as a meander scar now. Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • occupired -> sp
  • Colonel William Kinsman, the commander of the 23rd Iowa, proposed to Lawler that his regiment should attack the Confederates[;] , [Kinsman] reasoning [was] that the Confederates would only have time to fire one volley before the Union soliders reached the defenses[,] and that the Confederates might not put up a stiff fight after the Champion Hill defeat.
  • Consider the above changes, but since this sentence is over 50 words you might want to split it?
  • Done in a mostly equivalent form; I've also split the sentence Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • soliders -> sp
  • Lawler ordered a charge by his whole brigade[;] , with the 21st and 23rd Iowa in the front rank while the other two regiments charged behind.
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 49th and 69th Indiana joined the attack[;] ,[67] while Lawler's men advanced at an angle across Green's front, [and] striking one of Vaughn's regiments, the 61st Tennessee Infantry Regiment.[68]
Consider the above changes
Done, with some other changes as well Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lawler's men stopped to fire once they reached the abatis[;] , and the Tennesseans [were] routed, and the defenders either ran away or surrendered.[68]
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He then formed a new line west of the river , [by] using the brigades of Brigadier Generals Stephen D. Lee and William E. Baldwin, who had arrived from Bovina, Mississippi, and part of Landis's Missouri Battery [that] , which had been positioned on the west bank before the battle.
  • Two other Confederate steamboats, Charm and Paul Jones, who had been located downstream from the bridge, were also burned.[74]
Consider the above changes for these two sentences
Done

Aftermath and preservation

  • Albert Lee's men spent the afternoon [add date and year] in low-intensity fighting across the river against [a] the Confederate force there, while Carr and Smith's men patrolled the field.[75]
Comsider the above changes
I've gone with "after the battle" instead of putting in the date and year of the battle again and have made the other change Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Union reported the capture of 1,751 Confederates, as well as 18 cannon[s].[76]
  • Consider the above changes
  • It's reported above at 1,750?
* The lead figure was a round number that has been replaced by the actual count. Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Confederate artillery losses [came about because] were due to the horse[-drawn] teams for the cannons [had been erroneously] being moved across the river before the battle for unclear reasons.
Consider the above changes
Mostly done, although see my reply in the lead section about the distinction between the cannons themselves and the horse teams Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green reported having suffered 485 casualties, while two of Vaughn's regiments combined for 546 losses.
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of these casualties were in prisoners or [those] missing in action.
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th Mississippi, one of Vaughn's regiments, and Cockrell's brigade did not report losses, but [they were] are known to have suffered heavily in men captured.[79]

Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pemberton ordered several outlying positions withdrawn into the main lines and the Vicksburg defenses were also physically improved.
Consider the above changes
I'm not sure what the above changes are? Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was much outrage against Pemberton within the Confederate army due to the events of the past several days.[85]
What events?
Clarified Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Loring had noticed light from fires in Union-occupied Edwards on the morning of May 17, and with the way blocked [he] , instead marched his men to Jackson , joining [where they joined] forces with Johnston on May 19.
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sherman sent a cavalry regiment towards Snyder's Bluff, where the Confederate fortifications were found to have been abandoned; [while] Grant's army had regained a connection to the Union Navy elements [on] in the Yazoo River.[87]
Consider the above changes
Done Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath
A close reading of the content of the aftermath part of the above section suggests that much of it might not fall within the ordinary meaning of aftermath.
  • See Section headings and Article titles of the MOS - Wikipedia:Manual of Style
  • The new Oxford American Dictionary defines the meaning of aftermath as "the consequences or aftereffects of a significant unpleasant event, and it further defines aftereffects as "an effect that follows after the primary action of something.
What do you think?
Pendright - I'll see what @WP:MILHIST coordinators: have to say. I've used the "Aftermath" heading in a number of other GA/FA articles about battles before, so I'd like additional opinions as this change would affect a number of articles. Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm:: Unfortunately, there seems to be problems between what I said and your understanding of it. The issue I raise is not at all about the use of the Aftermath heading, it's about some of the content contained within the Aftermath part of the section that seems more relevant to the Battle section.
Oh, okay - I've moved the first paragraph about the casualties and battlefield cleanup out of the aftermath section - does this resolve the issue? Hog Farm Talk 14:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So chew on this for a bit and then you decide whether or not any changes seem necessary.Pendright (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: @Nick-D: @Donner60: This aftermath thing seems to have gotten out of hand, so let's bring some perspective to it by reviewing the facts. Initially, I stated that - A close reading of the content of the Aftermath part of the above section suggests that much of it might not fall within the ordinary meaning of aftermath. I followed up by asking - What do you think? Your response to this was - "I'll see what @WP:MILHIST coordinators have to say. They had plenty to say, however, it seemed as though they were responding to something other than the question I put to you. In our most recent exchange, I stated - Chew on this for a bit [the Aftermath content] and then you decide whether any changes seem necessary. To which you replied - Oh, okay - I've moved the first paragraph about the casualties and battlefield cleanup out of the aftermath section - does this resolve the issue? There was no issue to resolve - my comment merely asked you to decide whether changes to the content were necessary. You opted for change, so consider the matter closed. Pendright (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's one of the suggested heading names in articles on battles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide#Battles, and is widely used. It seems to be in line with the Oxford dictionary definition noted above. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nick-D. It is in the manual of style, provides context and almost all of the events have further developments in a war or at its end. I am not going to go back and look but it would be safe to assume that all 99 military history articles that I have written would need to be changed, and the end would usually be left dangling with the question, so where do I look to see what happened next if the dictionary definition were to be strictly and narrowly interpreted and used to cut off these sections. The manual of style, along with common and accepted practice for military history articles, provide a sufficient basis for continuing to use these sections in military history articles. Donner60 (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: This is it for mow - Pendright (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I move to support - Pendright (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2024 (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) 20:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Crusading movement[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk)

Crusading movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it was recently a DYK on the main page, following a successful GAR and looks in pretty good shape. However it probably needs a fresh pair of eyes. I am sure there are improvements to be made bur please be gentle, it can get to be a heated topic on here. Topic wise it is about the institution of Christian Catholic Holy War & the Crusades. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Hawkeye7[edit]

Lead[edit]
  • Suggest splitting the first paragraph at "The concept of crusading"

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest merging the final paragraph with the first

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]
  • The first paragraph does not belong here, as it is not about the background; move to the Legacy section

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "was seen by a reformist movement" when was this?

 Done 11th century added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • " identified three key pre-conditions" for what?

 Done crusading movement - added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The crusades were not only a function of anarchy" That does not seem correct, given the degree or organisation involved

 Done badly worded, opposite was intended Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • " and when these factors played less of a part" This wording is unclear. Less of a part in what? Suggest re-wording.

 Done reworded to less significant, also attributed to the technical definition from International Relations Theory Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and war[edit]
  • "Texts describe the development of a distinct ideology that promoted and regulated crusades." Suggest "A distinct ideology promoted and regulated crusades."

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Church defined crusading in legal and theological terms based on the theory of holy war and the concept of pilgrimage.

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link "holy war", "pilgrimage", "just war", "Old Testament", "New Testament"

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • What are "Christocentric views"?

 Done w-l Christocentric Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "fighting in Sicily" Suggest "Norman conquest of Sicily" instead

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The idea developed under Pope Gregory I" Should this be Gregory VII?

 Not done The source is explicit that it was the first Gregory, cited to page 10 of Erdmann Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Church viewed Rome as the Patrimony of Saint Peter" I don't know what the significance of this is here - consider deleting

 Done reworded instead Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Penance and indulgence[edit]
  • "Before the 11th century" Is "By the 11th century" mean here?

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link "absolution", "Atonement in Christianity", " Calixtus II", "Albigensian", "Papal bull"

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • " with two recorded directives" Delete "recorded"

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Knights and chivalry[edit]
  • De-capitalise "chivalry"

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • " The new methods of warfare" Spilt paragraph here. And what were the new methods of warfare?

 Done should have read these which now makes more sense, split the para later as this runs on correctly now Norfolkbigfish (talk)

  • "Military strategy and medieval institutions were immature in feudal Europe, with power too fragmented for the formation of disciplined units." I don't think that the second phrase is true. And what institutions are we talking about? And were there other that medieval ones in feudal Europe?

 Not done Hmmmm, as written it pretty much matches the source I think. Honig refers to Hans Delbrück In feudal Europe power was too fragmented for medieval rulers to be able to organise disciplined, combined units that could follow orders and execute tactical and strategic designs. He also quotes Charles Oman:Nowhere are more reckless displays of blind courage, or more stupid neglect of the elementary rules strategy and tactics to be found in the great expeditions to the Levant. Even where tactical ability is acknowledged, strategic thinking is absent because structural factors prevent decisive leadership. Armies were little more than plundering gangs in many cases. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Military orders[edit]
  • Split paragraph at "Military orders" and "After the fall of Acre"

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • link "fall of Acre"

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any illustrations available of one of the military order knights?

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perception of Muslims[edit]
  • "Islam" is used before it is linked.

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sections on "Knights and chivalry", "Military orders", "Common people" and "Perception of "Muslims are not part of the background; move to the next section

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12th century[edit]
  • Link "Crusade of 1101", "Alfonso the Battler"

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should "church" be capitalised?

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Calixtus II extended the definition of crusading during his five years as Pope, before his death in 1124. It is hard to imagine him doing it after his death. See Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment.

 Done :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13th century[edit]

 Not done—already linked at first usage. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15th century[edit]
  • "Warfare was now more professional and costly." Why?

 Done This was driven by factors including contractual recruitment, increased intelligence and espionage, a greater emphasis on navel warfare, the grooming of alliances, new and varied tactics to deal with different circumstances and opposition, and the hiring of experts in siege warfare. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is the Great Schism the East-West or the Western? Suggest using the latter term instead.

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link Ottoman Empire

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Split paragraph at "Around the end of the 15th century"

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy[edit]
  • "or subject to migration" But Outremer was subject to migration

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move "in 1936" to the previous section

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography[edit]

I don't know if the historiography section is relevant Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done— I was thinking along the lines of how the movement was perceived/criticised/lauded was all part of it as an institution. Particularly in the way it changed over time. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx @Hawkeye7, I am busy IRL, but will get on these ASAP. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note

I will review once Hawkeye's review has been addresssed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Peacemaker67, @Hawkeye7—just for my information are there any actions on this that you think are with me? I have have been assuming it is with you guys atm, let me know if my assumption is incorrect? As ever, thanks for everything you do. KR Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: All my concerns have been addressed, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Big effort to get this together, Nbf! This might take a few bites to get through. I immediately noticed that given the amount of religious terms introduced, there is a need for more links. Also, quite a few links are made after a term has been first introduced, or two or more links are made to the same term (which is probably excessive).

Lead
  • extend the sentence following "Crusades" in the first sentence to explain what they were eg "Crusades – a series of religious wars initiated, supported, and sometimes directed by the Christian Latin Church in the medieval period." with appropriate links
  • link Christian martyr
  • move link to First Crusade to first mention
  • link penance
  • change the Biblical italics to a quote bound by quotation marks
  • "the recovery of Jerusalem and the Palestinian holy places" from whom?
  • for "papal" link pope
  • link Christendom
  • link Christian pilgrimage

 Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background
  • "mundus" is obscure, provide its meaning
  • link Monasticism
  • link liturgy
  • link Res publica Christiana
  • link Cluny Abbey
  • link Christendom at first mention and delink later usage
  • German Historian→German historian
  • decap International Relations Theory
  • link Latin Church and delink later usages
  • link paganism
  • move link to holy war to first mention and delink later usage
  • link Christian pilgrimage
  • link Canon law of the Catholic Church at first mention and delink later usage
  • need a space after fns [7][8]
  • decap Empire
  • just war is linked twice in the Christianity and war subsection
  • if the just war criteria are inclusive (ie all should be met), suggest decapping first letter of each dot point and putting a semi-colon at the end of the first two dot points, "and" after the second dot point, and a period at the end of the last dot point.
  • state when was Erdmann writing, if his thinking has now been superseded?
  • suggest applying the same approach as with the criteria to the dot points regarding Erdmann's ideas
  • suggest piping the link to absolution to "remission and absolution of sin" not just absolution  Not done—T didn't find this page Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • link contrition
  • link Confession (religion)
  • link penance
  • link Restitution (theology)
  • link Indulgence#Plenary indulgences
  • should it be "the exemption from atonement"?
  • link infidel

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

This could take some working through.

  • "a myth conflicting with the ideals of the Church" in what respects?  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Kingdom of Jerusalem
  • link Crusader states
  • how did Humbert of Romans generate resources by his preaching?  Done added narrative to describe his work Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Jean Flori

Down to Birth, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC) All the above now  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • while I am aware there is a book titled "Political Augustinianism" it is a book title, and scholars like John Rist decap "political" when discussing it. I suggest this should be "political Augustinianism".
  • Thomas Aquinas→Aquinas, he's been introduced already
  • rm comma from "This required what were partly inefficient,"
  • "The view on penance, that it could apply to killing adversaries" do you mean "it could be achieved/accomplished by killing adversaries"?
  • "The identification of the recovery of the despoiled country of Christ" I don't know what this means? The Holy Land? Or a metaphysical concept?
  • "led by a new knighthood" which knighthood?
  • link esprit de corps
  • link anti-pope A
  • comma after "William I, Count of Burgundy"
  • delink Hospitallers in "one by the Hospitallers"
  • move the link to Clement V up to the first mention
  • move the link to Cistercians up to the first mention
  • link forced conversion
  • link Schism
  • suggest linking dissenter for non-conformist
  • link Pope Gregory IX to Cardinal Hugo Ugolino of Segni then unlink later one
  • same suggestion about the dot points for just war applies to Segni's actions and to Gregory's actions (also link Teutonic Order in the latter and rm the later link)
  • link Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor at first mention
  • clarify that "against the emperor" means against the Holy Roman Emperor. At the most appropriate point I think you need to explain the relationship between the Pope and Emperor/Church and Empire, as it affected the crusading movement.
  • move the link to Innocent IV to first mention
  • what was the "after the conflict in Lombardy and Sardinia"? Is there a link?
  • explain "Staufen dynasty" or link
  • why use "general passage" rather than crusade? It is obscure to the general reader.
  • "Western Europeans blamed failures – the First Crusade" I thought the First Crusade was a success?
  • italicise "Würzburg Annals"
  • link Louis IX of France
  • who was the dean of Lincoln at the council? Richard de Mepham or John de Maidenstan? Link Dean of Lincoln regardless.
  • "Although aA minority view"

Down to 14th C. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC) All  Done apart from the highlighted—I will circle round and address later. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • careful with using an obscure term like Outremer to refer to something already explained, it just has the reader looking for the earlier use, or wondering what it means.
  • In general, avoid starting a sentence with "However". The sentence beginning "However, ideas, and the consolidation" is trying to say too much, and I cannot actually work out what that is.
  • the first para of the 14th C subsection seems to be more about the 13th C, with its focus on Gregory X, who was long dead before the 14th C began.
  • link Mamluks and explain who they were
  • suggest avoiding using Latin words when plain English would be clearer, ie passigium particulare
  • say what Routiers were
  • link Western Schism

Down to 15th C. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC) All  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sentence beginning "His famous Latin letters and speeches" needs a rewrite. It isn't clear to me what the subject is.
  • "the conqueror of Constantinople"→"Mehmed II"
  • Pope Pius II
  • same suggestion about the dot points
  • "Exiled rulers" from where?
  • navel→naval
  • Bohemia? link?
  • Maximilian? link?
  • suggest "Alexander IV himself"
  • Spanish Reconquista? link?
  • capture of Granada in 1492? link?
  • Castile? link?
  • French Wars of Religion? link?
  • suggest "Catholic Church in Spain" as it wasn't a separate entity?
  • suggest "This is a contentious issue, as others maintain that the the Latin settlements in the Levant did not meet the accepted definition of a colony, that of territory politically directed by or economically exploited for the benefit of a homeland." BTW, where does this definition come from? Peacemaker67 from memory this comes from Phillips in the cited source (The Oxford History), although I suspect he wasn't the origin of it. Is this an issue do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • de-italicise religious colonies, it isn't in line with MOS:ITALICS

Down to Historiography. Nearly there... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC) All  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography
  • I suspect there is quite a bit of overlinking as well as missing links. Once you are done, I will check it with the script and identify any.
  • at second mention "Jonathan Riley-Smith"  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this section I expected to read about the perspectives of historians of Islam and Byzantium (and in fact I expected them to be compared and contrasted throughout, but other than a short sentence "The Muslim context now receives attention from Islamicists." it is missing. I don't think that is enough for A-Class, esp when there are sources like The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World edited by Laiou and Mottahedeh; and The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives by Hillenbrand. Otherwise, I am now done. Great job so far. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much @Peacemaker67, I'll start from the top and work down. This will probably be next week, real live is a bit full on atm. Greatly appreciated. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New paragraph added to cover the Muslim viewpoint, cited Hillenbrand and added to sources. Getting the scope right is challenging, particularly differentiating between what is about the movement and what is about events. Hope this fills that gap, what do you think Peacemaker67 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good, looking forward to seeing this at FAC in the fullness of time. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Peacemaker67 for all your time and attention—it has been interesting and fun. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Adam Cuerden[edit]

Six images. All kind of pass, but there's some issues I really need to bring up.

Failed Fixed now

I'll fix those last two at some point. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 09:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both have been replaced with the full-size originals. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 11:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything passes, if that needs said. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 06:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, as ever @Hawkeye7, I will get on these soon. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Hawkeye7, I think I have addressed all these. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Passing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Donner60[edit]

12th century[edit]
  • Consider deleting "although it is likely that had the First Crusade failed this would have been different" While I think this is a logical conclusion, I am concerned that in an A-class article this could be criticized as speculation, or worse, original research, unless directly supported by a citation.  Done It is pretty much what Riley-Smith wrote in the source, but it is subjective. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have deleted "by" in the phrase "Urban he by defeated the three." If this is not a typo, perhaps it is the remnants of a draft phrase which was either not completed or not completely removed? Green tickY you are right, it is left over detritus from various edits. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will resume my review at this point later.

13th century[edit]
  • The paragraph starting with "Between 1217 and 1221, Cardinal Hugo Ugolino of Segni..." and ending with bullet points has no citation.  Done It was cited to Tyerman in the following sentence. Added Paragraph break to make this obvious. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following paragraph after "Frederick finally arrived in the Holy Land..." and ending with bullet points has no further citation.  Done cited to Bird. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
14th century[edit]
  • "...blockade of the Egypy..." needs clarification. "Egypt"? a port in Egypt?  Done typo y>>t Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
15th century[edit]
  • Suggest that after "the Hospitallers retreated from Rhodes..." add "to Crete and Sicily and in 1530 to Malta and Gozo." and break sentence at this point.

I will resume my review soon with the "Legacy" section. Donner60 (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Donner60, I will get to these asap, just very busy IRL atm though :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have done a great job of providing competing points of view in the concluding sections. I think your responses to the previous reviews provide balance and neutrality. These are excellent summary sections. The only minor comment that I have is that I probably would have written "in the Holy Land" rather than "on the Holy Land" in the second paragraph of Legacy. I think it is ok either way so I am going to support without further recommendations. An outstanding article on a difficult topic but interesting and easy reading throughout. Even with my limited comments, I am only the third reviewer and there is not a third full or nearly complete previous review. So I will recommend that an uninvolved coordinator take a look at this for passing on to A class. Donner60 (talk) 10:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for you kind words @Donner60, it has been a long journey to get to this point. I have taken your point on on the Holy Land I think that was a mistake on my behalf. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2024 (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 Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

John Bullock Clark[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

John Bullock Clark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This was previously nominated back in August but was withdrawn without commentary after I got really busy off-wiki. A politician, lawyer, and militia officer, Clark saw combat experience in the American Civil War that included leading a militia unit into battle against the United States Army while still a sitting member of the United States House of Representatives. Hog Farm Talk 16:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias[edit]

  • "Conard, Howard L., ed. (1901)" could do with an OCLC identifier if there is one.
    • added
  • "Vandiver, W. D. (1926)" is out of order in the References, and should drop below the two Sheridan sources.
    • Fixed
  • "Vandiver, W. D. (1926)" could also do with an ISSN (0026-6582, I think).
    • added
  • Consider archiving online sources.
    • done
  • "The child of Bennett and Martha Clark, John Bullock Clark Sr. was born in.." It might just be me, but I find it odd to include "Sr." when talking about him being born, as he presumably didn't come to be known as this until much later.
    • changed
  • "Allardice refers to him.." Who is Allardice?
    • Glossed
  • "..of the state by the early 1839." Not sure if it an ENGVAR thing, but "by the early 1839" doesn't sound right to me; I'd get rid of that "the".
    • "the" removed
  • "During the election, Democratic newspapers spread claims that the Whigs had spread false party ballots in parts of the state that listed the corrected Democrat candidates except substituting Clark for Reynolds." I had to read this a couple of times, because I initially thought it was using "that listed the corrected Democrat candidates" to show which parts of the state they were spread in. Try rephrasing it.
    • "corrected" was a typo for "correct" - is this clearer with the error corrected?
      • Honestly, I've now read it so many times that I can't tell anymore, so we'll call it fine for the time being at least! Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent whether you use "pro-slavery" or "proslavery".
    • Have standardized to pro-slavery

Not much wrong with this. Generally, I wonder if so much detail is necessary on the general Civil War manoeuvres and stuff, but I'm broadly content that is provides useful context. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: - Thanks for the review! Replies are above; everything should be fixed now. Hog Farm Talk 02:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PM[edit]

Will take a crack at this shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Body
  • "Historian" isn't a formal rank or position, and AFAIK should be preceded by the definite article. ie "The historian Kenneth..." same later with McCandless, and in a general sense starting sentences with a role rather than the definite article, eg "Democratic politician..."
    • I think I've caught all of these
  • "entered the bar" is rather odd wording. Our article says "admitted to the bar" is used in the US per Call to the bar#United States.
    • Rephrased
  • "except substituting Clark for Reynolds" who is Reynolds? He has not been introduced prior to this point. Also the man at the later link for Reynolds died in 1844?
    • I've moved the link/gloss for this Reynolds up. This is describing an election in 1840, when Reynolds was still alive. I think the fact that a 1848 militia promotion is tacked on to the end of the prior section is causing the time confusion, so I've moved that sentence to its proper chronological location
  • "and he stood as a candidate again in 1852" unsuccessfully?
    • I have to assume so, but the sources don't deal with this clearly. Warner & Yeans only says that he was a state rep without giving the years, Allardice and the Congressional biography only give the years. The only reference I have been able to turn up to this re-election campaign is while as late as 1852, the editor of the Glasgow Times offered a sarcastic reminder to his Boon's Lick readership and to Clark, then a candidate for Congress ...
      • After further research, I think Phillips is in error, so I've removed this. I found several news stories in 1852 asking for him to run, the article in the Glasgow Times that Phillips is citing was written after the election and doesn't claim Clark was a candidates, and I turned up the election returns from 1852 on newspapers.com. The MO House seat in Howard County was won by C. F. Jackson and N. G. Elliott over two candidates named Payne and Patterson, and the US House election was John Gaines Miller vs. James S. Green. Hog Farm Talk 15:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • what rank was Franz Sigel?
    • Added
  • comma after "Battle of Carthage, Missouri"
    • Done
  • there is a link to Thomas Caute Reynolds, is this the same Thomas Reynolds as earlier? If so, link him earlier and delink this example. If not, perhaps differentiate the two?
    • I've distinguished the two in a footnote
  • so he was wanted by the authorities, and what he heard while still in Mexico was wrong? Otherwise why was he arrested and detained when he returned?
    • Allardice isn't clear on this. The only other source I've been able to find that deals with this is Vandiver, and I don't think this is within the small sphere of things Vandiver is usable for. (Among other things, this section of Vandiver praises John Newman Edwards and retells a dubious story about how "Tip", alledgely one of Clark's former slaves, helped get him free from Fort Jackson due to personal affection for Clark) Hog Farm Talk 05:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed a couple of ndashes
Lead
  • I think his military rank makes him notable for that as well, and should be in the first sentence, ie "was a brigadier general in the Missouri State Guard on the Confederate side during the American Civil War and a politician who..." or switch the two roles and mention politician first then soldier
    • I've gone with "was a militia officer and politician who served as a member ...". It seems odd to me to stress only his brief CSA service when his role in the Missouri Mormon War attracts as much attention due to his being the recipient of the Extermination Order. Hog Farm Talk 23:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ersatz" means replacement or substitute. Not sure it is the right word here.
  • "The Confederate Governor of Missouri..." as above
    • But isn't "Confederate Governor of Missouri" a formal title?
  • "was also a general in the" but Clark wasn't in the CSA, he was in the MSG (I'd drop "also")
    • Done here and in the article body as well. Hog Farm Talk 23:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • in general, replace Federal with Union, per other discussions on this matter
G'day Hawkeye7. I understand that rationale and it makes more sense, but if we adopt that approach for the Federal or United States side we should also adopt its approach to the Confederates, ie do not use legitimising terms. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV: "Prefer nonjudgmental language". The US Army advises: "describe the political and social situation of the Civil War in a neutral manner." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IB
  • I would consider adding a military person module to the infobox with his rank, wars served in etc
    • @Peacemaker67: - this is done in a draft form right now but it's a bit clunky. I'm trying to distinguish between his purely state service before the Civil War and his MSG service. Clark was never part of the formal US or CS armed forces. Hog Farm Talk 15:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Images
  • the IB image is PD and properly licensed
  • File:Missouri State Guard divisions map (cropped).svg needs information on the source used to draw the map. I think that info is on the original file page, just copy it across.

That's it. Consider this a content and image review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PM67 - just wanted to let you know this is still on my radar ... still trying to get consistent internet access after moving; hopefully should be resolved later this week. Hog Farm Talk 02:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: - sorry for the delay here. I think everything should be taken care of. Hog Farm Talk 23:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • References are nicely and consistently formatted, and are in alphabetical order (which seems strangely difficult for people lately)
  • Reputable sources are used that accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge
  • Spot checks:
    • fn 7a, 8, 14, 55 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7[edit]

Looks good. Some comments:

  • Should his notable relatives be noted in the Infobox?
    • This is done
  • "He entered the bar in 1824" In Australia we would say "was admitted to the bar"; "entered" in this context sounds like he went drinking
    • Rephrased; I'm going to claim WP:LIMITED for this phrasing be too close now to what Warner & Yearns have as I don't think it's avoidable without being stilted
  • Should Militia be linked to Militia (United States)?
    • Linked in the lead; it's already linked in the body
  • Lead: "With the outbreak of the American Civil War in 1861, Clark, who was wealthy and owned 160 slaves, became a leading secessionist in Missouri." Body: " By 1861, Clark was wealthy and owned 160 slaves... Clark was a leading Missouri secessionist." Source: "Clark was a strong secessionist and a leader in the state's secession movement. Clark's own comments deserve quoting at length: 'While insisting that the best course was to stand by the union, I had, nevertheless, always said that when war did come I would go with the South... That Spring [of 1861] ... I was worth a million [dollars]. On my place there were 160 slaves, seventy of them men.'" The question is whether he became a secessionist only after the war began, as the lead claims, or before, as is implied by the body. It's hard to imagine him being a leader if he only became a secessionist after the war began. The source is poorly written. (His support of succession doesn't sound "strong" in the source, although after the war many people may have back-pedalled on their support.)
    • I've adjusted the lead version. Warner & Yearns is silent on this matter. Piston & Hatcher calls his "one of the state's leading Secessionists". Vandiver claims that Clark became a secessionist after the Camp Jackson affair and ensuing riot but I don't think Vandiver is a suitable source for such matters. As to "It's hard to imagine him being a leader if he only became a secessionist after the war began", Sterling Price who commanded the entire State Guard, had originally opposed secession. Essentially Nathaniel Lyon managed to piss a bunch of people off between the Camp Jackson affair and stating the he was okay with seeing "every man, woman, and child in the State dead and buried" at the meeting that ended the Price-Harney Truce, so a number of people who were on the fence moved over to secessionism at that time.
  • "In October, Jackson and the deposed Confederate government of Missouri voted to secede and join the Confederacy" How can it be the Confederate government of Missouri before it voted to secede and join the Confederacy?
    • Rephrased
  • Consider putting his postbellum career into a separate section
    • I'm not convinced that there's enough material there to make it worthwhile to do so
  • "After the Confederate defeat in 1865, a reward was issued for Clark's arrest" You could mention that it was $10,000. Alas, the source does not tell us why they wanted him arrested.
    • Added the dollar amount; I'm not finding anywhere why they wanted to arrest him

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: - replies are above. I don't have a good answer for as to when he became a secessionist, although the 1850 election comment from McCandless about "most likely to disrupt the party and the Union" seems relevant as well. Hog Farm Talk 03:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks fine to me. I don't usually deal with articles about the 19th century because it is outside my area of expertise; US politics is highly controversial and subject to ArbCom sanctions; and historians of the period are apt to look at me with disdain and say things like "I'll bet your primary sources are typed." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Donner60[edit]

  • Comment: I noted above two changes that you made in response to Peacemaker comments that were not previously noted. I think that now shows all comments
  • Comment: I assume "grade" v. "rank" is of no relevance to an appointment as a state militia general; the Eichers are sticklers about the distinction, as you know, but I don't see any mention about it in the case of state militias.
  • The Eichers give December 6, rather than December 7, as the date of termination for Clark's tenure as a state militia general. I assume that this is a typo, in fact, it may even be my typo since I think I gave you the citation to the dates when you were drafting the article. I changed the date.
  • I would have made the same comment as Hawkeye7 about splitting the last paragraph off as a separate later life section but you have addressed that and I won't take issue with your conclusion.
  • Since you have addressed all the comments in three other reviews and I have found nothing else that I think needs to be addressed, I am supporting promotion and will change the assessment on the talk page accordingly. Donner60 (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2024 (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 Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Minden Blake[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

Minden Blake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Up for review here is a bio of a New Zealand Battle of Britain fighter pilot and flying ace (he was quite the sportsman as well). A prewar officer in the RAF, after the Battle of Britain he led fighter wings up until the Dieppe Raid, when he was shot down and became a prisoner of war. This went to GA back in 2020 and I have been meaning to bring it here for an A-Class review for a while now. Thanks in advance to those who take the time to leave feedback. Zawed (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

Great work as always Zawed. I have only some modest comments:

  • "He is credited with shooting down at least ten aircraft" - the final section credits him with 13 kills, 3 of which were shared. I'd suggest tweaking this text.
  • I was referring to the victories that he was solely responsible for, not the shared. Nonetheless, have revised this as suggested. Zawed (talk) 08:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead says that he was a 'prolific inventor' but the final section describes him as a 'inveterate tinkerer' and only notes a single patent for a new invention. Did he develop other products?
  • I've walked back this a bit by removing "prolific". Note that there are two patents. Zawed (talk) 08:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if the sources cover this, but did he join the RAF to get his passage to the UK paid for and/or to take advantage of veterans' benefits to study at the end of his service? The wording here is a bit unclear.
  • It was under a "university entrant" scheme; I had thought mentioning the intention to study engineering was sufficient but have now added specific mention of the scheme. Zawed (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first para of the 'Second World War' section is a bit wordy
  • "was appointed commander of a fighter wing" - I'd suggest noting which wing this was
  • The source identifies this as the "Polish Wing" but no number. I have added a specific mention of this. Zawed (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By this time, German defensive operations was causing high casualties among the RAF, which subsequently saw a reduction in these missions over the winter months" - the wording here is a bit clunky
  • Did Blake develop the gyroscopic gunsight, or was he involved in trialling it, etc?
  • The 'Postwar career' section doesn't mention Blake's rank for his various appointments. Was he promoted, or did he remain a Wing Commander? (it would also be good to note when he was made substantive at this rank, as it's only noted that he was an acting Wing Commander at the time of his capture)
  • There doesn't seem to have been a promotion beyond his wing commander rank being made substantive. I've also made a distinction between acting and temporary wing commander in the previous section. Zawed (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I right in thinking that Blake didn't return to flying roles after the war? Was this due to the injuries he had sustained?
  • Yes, it seems that his postwar roles were as a staff officer. I don't think it was a matter of his physical condition, as he pole vaulted and golfed to a high level. Zawed (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1979, Blake was a co-author, along with H. J. Weaver, of Suicide by Socialism" - this indicates that he had fairly strong conservative political views. Can anything be said about this? It might be worth checking online UK newspaper archives. Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found an article in a trade newspaper that briefly discusses the book, and have added a bit about it. @Nick-D: thanks for taking the time to look at this. I have responded to your points above and my edits are here]. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support These changes look good, and I'm pleased to support. Please note the extra comment above though. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • "He was shot down during aerial operations in support of the Dieppe Raid". Could it be mentioned when this was?
  • " He was also an inventor and developed a golfing aid that was a commercial success." Is there a typo of some sort in here?
  • I didn't see a typo but have slightly rephrased. Zawed (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minden is an unusual first name, is it known why he as given it? (After the battle of Minden?)
  • No, nothing in the sources. Zawed (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blake entered the Canterbury University College". I don't think there should be a definite article there.
  • "In the meantime, he had graduated". Suggest deleting "had"; the first three words have established the past tense.
  • "a masters of science". Why is master plural?
  • "He gained his wings". Could you provide a brief in line gloss for this?
  • Not entirely sure what you mean here, but now refer to "pilot's wings" as an attempt for greater context. Zawed (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's jargon, but I guess that for A class we can let it slide.
  • "He remained active in athletics, particularly in pole vaulting". Are you sure the source says he was particularly active in pole vaulting, as opposed to particularly successful?
  • I somewhat overreached here, have rephrased to focus specifically on the pole vaulting. Zawed (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to take over as its acting commander. Taking up his new role on 16 August, his new squadron was part of". Optional: is it possible to avoid the semi-repetition of take/taking and the actual repetition of "new"?
  • Have rephrased to deal with this. Zawed (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth indicating that Middle Wallop is the name of the air base?
  • "On 15 September, what is now known as Battle of Britain Day, No. 238 Squadron was scrambled to help protect London from a large bombing raid". "raid" singular? If so, which one?
  • I was referring to a mid-afternoon raid, I have clarified and added an indication of the size of the bomber force. Zawed (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "destroying one which crashed on an airfield in Sussex." I don't think "destroying" is the correct word if it managed to crash land on an airfield.
  • Rephrased for better clarity. Zawed (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked on first mention earlier in 2nd para of WWII section, but have removed fill stop in both instances. Zawed (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " A major operation for the squadron was the provision of a covering escort for the destroyer HMS Javelin ... into Plymouth". This doesn't work, grammatically.
  • "Several Do 17s mounted an attack on Javelin". Did this meet with any success?
  • Made clear the ship made it to port. Zawed (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "operated Supermarine Spitfire fighters ... operated Supermarine Spitfire fighters". Is the model it was flying from St Eval known?
  • "it began to undertake offensive operations to occupied France and Belgium". Optional: "to" → 'over'.
  • "to the southwest of Isle of Portland" → 'to the southwest of the Isle of Portland'.
  • "south west ... southwest". Any reason for the inconsistency?
  • There isn't a place called "Portland" in the UK. What does the source say?
  • Amended to Isle of Portland. Zawed (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the destruction of a Bf 109". It would be helpful if a reader were told in line what type of aircraft a "Bf 109" was and if the term were linked.
  • "At the end of the year, his wing commander rank was made temporary." This will be read as a demotion by most readers, could it be unpacked a little?
  • I'm struggling to explain the distinction between this and "acting" but had a go, including a link. Zawed (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blake continued on operations for the next several months". Is the actual number of months known?
  • I've rejigged this; the point I was trying to make was that he remained in command of Portreath Wing up until Dieppe. Zawed (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why "gyroscopic gunsight" is not linked to Gyro gunsight?
  • "Shortly afterwards he was sent on a course at the RAF College at Bracknell." Is it known what the topic of the course was?
  • No info in source on this. Zawed (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance of a brief description of what the Swingrite did?
  • Have added a short description. Zawed (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work as ever. Almost entirely nit picking above. My only real grumble is the low probability of this making its way to FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: thanks for the review, I have responded to all of your points now. Why the low probability for FAC, are you referring to my lack of presence there in recent times? Zawed (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am. You churn out well sourced articles. Which are (IMHO) well up to FAC when they come out of ACR. But few ever seem to get nominated there, which I consider a shame. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. It has been a while since I was last at FAC, my last nomination put me off the process a bit. I'm getting over myself now though and intend to head back there soon. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

I'll review this one soon. Hog Farm Talk 15:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there a link for perspex?

Wynn is self-published but I remember discussing that at I think a GA review about why that source is okay. I'm going to go ahead and support. Hog Farm Talk 23:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the support HF, much appreciated. Zawed (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE Wynn, looking ahead to a source review, I quote from my comments from the GA review HF refers to above (for James Hayter (RAF officer)): "Wynn is well known for his work on biographical dictionaries of fighter pilots of the Battle of Britain. His book, "Men of the Battle of Britain" is a major reference work in this field and has been published three times beginning in 1989, the most recent being by Frontline Books. Much of the content from his 1981 book is repeated in the later works but in a slightly trimmed down form. Both are often cited by authors in the field, e.g. John Ray, Adam Claasen, Stephen Bungay, James Holland, Brian Cull, the 1981 book more so by NZ authors. The Battle of Britain Memorial Trust now have the rights to his work. I believe that on this basis he is a reliable source." I note that the Frontline Books publication I mention in the quote was the 2015 edition. Zawed (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Only two images:

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking this. Zawed (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Sources are generally nicely formatted and consistent.
    • Lambert (2011) location?
      • Auckland, it is listed. Zawed (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources are generally against reputable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge.
    • Wynn (1981) self published?
      • Yes, self-published. See my comment above (as part of HogFarm's review) regarding this. Should I have self-published instead of reciting his name as publisher? Zawed (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        No need. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks:
    • fn 18, 19, 23a, 25 - okay
  • Consider adding his service number (36095) to the infobox. This will help quick lookups.
    • Done, I added a bit to the body of text as well. Zawed (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:25, 24 February 2024 (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 Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Hanford Engineer Works[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Hanford Engineer Works (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox


All requirements met. Consensus to promote exists. Donner60 (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was split from Hanford Site. During the FAR of Hanford Site, I decided to create a new article on the World War II establishment. This brings it into line with the articles on Los Alamos, Berkeley and Oak Ridge, all of which have subarticles on their role in the Manhattan Project. The sources complain about how Hanford has been overlooked compared with Los Alamos and Oak Ridge. This seems to be the case, but not for any scarcity of sources.

On Wikipedia the fault is mine. I began overhauling the Manhattan Project articles over ten years ago, but did not deal with Hanford, because Hanford Site was already a featured article. I did gather material though, and overhauling Hanford Site for its FAR made me aware of how poor the coverage of Hanford was compared with the other sites. So I took the opportunity to create this article.

It is a subarticle of both that article and Manhattan Project, and covers the site during the years of the Manhattan Project. The article contains a lot of beautiful images, many of which I located and uploaded specifically for it. It had a prior nomination which can be found here. Since then, EEng and I have gone over the article, trimming it down somewhat. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM[edit]

Great to see some more Manhattan Project stuff, Hawkeye. I could take a while to get through it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • I don't think you need to link WWII, also at first mention in the body.
    Other editors felt that it should be stated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant linked, not left out. WWII is such a common term. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Unlinked Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll come back to this at the end to double check, but lead should say what happened to the works. For example, is it still used, if so what for? Is there a museum?
    This is covered in the main article (Hanford Site). No museum, but B Reactor was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1992 and was designated a National Historic Landmark in 2008. In 2015, it became part of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) offers free guided tours of the site. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciate that, but this article begs the question. Not necessarily for the lead, but at the end at least. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Added a paragraph to the end. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Contractor selection
  • "uranium it into plutonium"
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to separate them" to separate what? uranium and plutonium? I thought transmute meant to change from one to the other?
    From untransmuted uranium and fission products. Plutonium 239 is formed when uranium 238 absorbs a neutron. But if it captures a second neutron it turns into plutonium 240. Weapons-grade plutonium has less than 7% plutonium 240 content. Approximately four tonnes of uranium was required to produce one kilogram of plutonium. Added this to the article. The approximately 1.15% of plutonium in the spent fuel removed from a commercial LWR power reactor (burn-up of 42 GWd/tU) consists of about 53% Pu-239, 25% Pu-240, 15% Pu-241, 5% Pu-242 and 2% of Pu-238, which is the main source of heat and radioactivity. [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Manhattan District" is used without explanation
    checkY Added an explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Willis Harrington then Harrington thereafter, same with Stine
    checkY Another editor added a bit here. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arthur Compton is duplinked, and explain who is was at first mention
    checkY Same here. Reworked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Site selection
  • "the plan to build the reactors at Oak Ridge there has been no mention of this at this point in the article. Perhaps "a plan..." whose plan exactly?
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the following sentence needs to parenthesised.
    checkY Removed parentheses. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • what was the "hazardous rectangle" formed by? Is the hazardous manufacturing area the same as this, or a different thing?
    checkY Yes. Changed "rectangle " to "manufacturing area". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is "TNX"?
    checkY Tweaked the wording, but I don't know what TNX stood for, if anything. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Land acquisition
  • "White Bluffs, Hanford (about 300 residents) and Richland (also about 300 residences)" should these both be "residences"?
    checkY Not sure. I don't have that book. Removed this for now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1500→1,500
    checkY Corrected.
  • "But in 1942 Franklin Matthias allowed about 30 Wanapum Native Americans" Why "But"? This para isn't very clear, were they allowed to stay and for how long? The bit in parens doesn't need to be.
    This duplicates what is said below, so removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • how did the order of possession interact with the leases/purchases?
    I'm not sure what the question is here. Land was acquired under eminent domain. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • which tribe did Buck belong to?
    checkY Wanapum. Added. I have an image of him, but considered it too poor to use in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Township (Hanford)
  • comma after Connell-Yakima state highway
    checkY Well spotted. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is meant by non-white in "White and non-white people had separate barracks" black? African-American? Do we even use white and non-white on WP?
    checkY I don't know what we use. In this case it mainly meant African Americans. There were some Latinos, who had their own barracks. No other non-whites were hired. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:RACECAPS indicates African-American and Hispanic are probably the best labels here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Township (Richland)
  • "The citizens of Richland were given until 15 November 1943 to vacate their homes." when were they told?
    Source doesn't say exactly, but notices went out in March. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because it was open, Matthias asked DuPont to ensure that it was kept neat and tidy" - what is meant by "open", could anyone go there? No security at all?
    Yes. Anybody could visit Richland. It was not a gated community like Oak Ridge or Los Alamos. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "appropriate for a village" this was a village? Perhaps a town?
    It's complicated. Basically, it is about the fact that Richland was not incorporated (i.e. became self governing) until 1955. See City government in Washington (state). Hanford Site has the story of how Richland became incorporated against the will of the residents. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Hiring a removalist to move possessions was difficult in wartime, so the dwellings"
    checkY Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personnel
  • the welded joints stretched 15 km? Do you mean pipes with welded joints?
    Welded joints. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How on earth were there 15 km of joints? What were the welds joining? Other joints? This makes no sense. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The welds were joining pipes. You weld two pieces of 15 cm pipe together you have ~ 45 cm of welding joints. Join 300,000 of them and you have 15 km of welding joints. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you don't. It might sound like I'm being pedantic here, but I'm not. You have "45 cm of piping with welded joints", or "15 km of piping with welded joints". "Welded joints" are the locations where the surface of two or more two metals or non-metals are fused together by the welding process with or without the application of pressure and filler. "Welded joints" isn't some sort of commonly-used shorthand for "pipes with welded joints", it refers only to the actual joints themselves. The actual welded joints themselves are of negligible length compared to the length of the pipe they are joining, because a weld only covers a very small portion of the pipes. It still makes no sense. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. The source says; "Most of the 50,000 linear feet of welded joints would be inaccessible when the pile was completed." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've run a search on the internet, and linear feet was the standard measure of welding productivity on the old measurements. For example: "The East Bay Aqueduct has been in successful operation since June, 1929. There are 870,000 linear feet of electrically welded longitudinal seams and 24,000 linear feet of circular seams in the 82.5 miles of steel pipe line." [2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's still very odd. But, anyway, a minor matter. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Health and safety
  • "200 area" is mentioned without explanation
    checkY Added an explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Facilities
  • three separation sites?
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 200 W vs 200-W and 200 E vs 200-E, just suggest consistency with all these facility designators
  • "Uranium was highly reactive" shouldn't this be "is"
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • link saturated solution (it is at solubility)
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • instead of "until Wilmington released the plans", can you use DuPont instead of Wilmington? I had to go back and search for what it was referring to. This occurs later as well.
    I wanted to emphasise that it was the group at Wilmington and not Hanford. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The wood, being rich in hydrogen" what wood?
    checkY I thought everyone knew masonite was made of wood. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • masonite blocks vs masonite sheets
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This would be welded" - was it? shouldn't this ne in past tense?
    checkY Tense changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remainder of article

HF - support[edit]

Ping me when Peacemaker67 is done with this and I will take a look. Hog Farm Talk 00:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: PM is finished, so you can have a look now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Re-pinging, as the last probably didn't work ;) Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Located at the Hanford Site in Benton County, Washington. It was home to the B Reactor, the first full-scale plutonium production reactor." - combine these two in some way; the first bit is a sentence fragment
  • checkY I don't see anything wrong with it; grammatically, it is an introductory clause. Re-worded anyway. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this article seems to be focused on the Manhattan project usage, I think it would be helpful to add a sentence to the lead referencing the transfer to the Atomic Energy Commission, as the end of the scope of this subarticle is not currently obvious from the lead
  • checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe "Cost Plus Fixed Fee" should be capitalized; I work with government finance and this generally isn't capitalized in the documents I have seen
  • checkY It is the capitalisation form used in Wikipedia. Use a piped redirect to de-capitalise. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It had originally been intended that the reactors at the Oak Ridge site, but Carpenter expressed reservations about this, because Oak Ridge was only 20 miles (32 km) from Knoxville" - something has gone wrong here grammatically
    checkY Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for Land Acquisition, will continue later. Hog Farm Talk 01:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In all, 4,218 tracts totaling 428,203.95 acres (173,287.99 ha) were to be acquired" - the table has 428,203.65 - is one of the two a typo?
  • checkY Yes. It should be 65 not 95. Checked against the source and double-checked the arithmetic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This year was its last; the school closed on 13 February 1945" - last school year, or last full school year? Is it known if it would have started the first semester of 1944-45?
  • checkY The source just says that it closed on 13 February 1945. So went with that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 00:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass[edit]

  • Consider archiving online sources.
  • I think there is a bot that does this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #110 "200 Area - Hanford Site" – Per our MOS, replace the hyphen with an endash. Also, be consistent about the naming of the source; this uses "www.hanford.gov", while ref #131 uses "Hanford Site" and ref #59 uses "DOE Hanford".
    checkY All now use "Hanford Site". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #143 "Gerber 1996, p. 4–7" – For the other Gerber references, you use a hyphen, which I think is more appropriate for this type of pagination.
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #179 "Hanford's B Reactor gets Landmark Status" – Recommend adding the ISSN, particularly as it is so readily available (0009-2347).
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link for "Harvey, David (1990)" doesn't work to me, just redirects to the home page.
    checkY Replaced the link with an OSTI one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hewlett, Richard G.; Anderson, Oscar E. (1962)" – The ISBN listed is for a 1990 re-issue, so it should use |year=1990 |origyear=1962
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • All sources appear to be reliable; there is heavy use of primary sources, but I don't feel it is an overreliance. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All good. Feel free to drop me a ping once Hog Farm wraps up their prose review, and I can take a look over that too. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Harrias: I think Hog Farm has finished now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to give it a second skim soon, but I anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 19:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias[edit]

Sorry it's taken me a while to get to this, the Christmas period was busier than I expected!

  • Not keen on the MOS:SEAOFBLUE here "..Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, and the Chief of Staff of the United States Army George C. Marshall."
  • "It had originally been intended that the reactors at the Oak Ridge site.." Seems to be missing some words?
    checkY Added missing words. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(about 100,000 KW)" – This should be kW.
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Finally there were two parcels of land designed as Area E.." Assume this should be designated, rather than designed?
    checkY That's right. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..often working in the shipyards in Seattle, or had joined the military.." The article switches tense here; both should match.
    checkY Matched. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The farmers had to pay their share of irrigation district land from the sale of their property." I don't understand what this means?
    It would be a big help if the relevant article wasn't a stub. In the United states, water belongs public, but the state can sell the right to use water. Irrigation districts were formed under Federal law to "reclaim" (ie develop) land for agricultural use. Farmers bought shares in the district which provided them with water and paid for their shares from the proceeds of their crops. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..seeking an explanation of the choice of the location.." This one always catches me out, but I'm pretty sure it should be "an explanation for".
    checkY Um, sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend adding {{Main|Hanford, Washington}} and {{Main|Richland, Washington}} at the start of the relevant sub-sections.
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was appalled at the idea.." It isn't immediately obvious who "he" is here.
    checkY Groves. Changed as suggested. Neighbourhood segregation by social class is the norm in the United States, but Groves was an Army brat who grew up on military reservations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About thirteen percent were women, and 16.45 percent were non-white." As these numbers are presented together, comparatively, it feels odd that one is a rough number, written out, while the other is a precise number in numerical form.
    Matches the source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Recruiting workers was one problem; keeping them was another. Turnover was a serious problem." Not keen on the repetition of "problem"; maybe switch one to "issue" or similar?
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stafford L. Warren, the head of the medical section of the Manhattan Project arranged medical.." This could do with a comma after "Project".
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..in the 200 area, the area containing the plutonium processing facilities.." Not keen on this close repetition of "the area", can it be rephrased to something like "..in the 200 area, which contained the plutonium processing facilities.."
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was one other production area, the 300 area.." And again; could it be "production zone"?
    checkY Changed to "site". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..to over ninety percent." As we're comparing this figure to the previously given "75 percent", could we put it in the same, numerical form.
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When describing the frost test, the article switches to providing the temperature in celsius (fahrenheit) rather than the other way around which is used elsewhere.
    checkY Flipped the order. Celsius was of course used at the time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed to the end of the Fabrication section, more to follow. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Starting a new review below after the Fabrication section where this third review left off. I have skimmed the entire article. I will look at the earlier part of the article after "completing" this third review. I suspect the the review has already been thorough and mostly needs confirmation. Donner60 (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

If this goes to FAC, I do hope they'll accept this there as well, as this article is going to be a lot of work. I'm reviewing this version, so this image review should stand as long as no new images are added.

Including the one in the infobox at the bottom, this article has, by my count, twenty-six images. As such, I'm just going to group things by issue(s).

...And I am so sorry to have found so many; half the images have some issue, but they're pretty much all minor. My gut feeling is there's nothing to worry about here, buuuut.... that's not how these reviews work. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 08:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on. I think some people were intimidated by the large number of images. I was like a kid in a candy store trying to chose them from so many beautiful images. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link to source broken[edit]

This is fairly normal, and there's no other issues to worry about with these. Site links aren't permanent. Basically, I think these are fine, but can't confirm. Would be really weird if they weren't.

File:Hanford B-Reactor Area 1944.jpg

It is fine. One thing worth noting on many of the images is the Manhattan Project's id number. This is not a watermark; it was written on the negative. I have replaced the link with one to the image in NARA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hanford_Site_Selection_Team.jpg

The "another copy link works fine". [3] and [4] also works. (NB: Not an image of the site selection team.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richland Washington.jpg

Added another source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lack an {{Information}} template and other basic documentation[edit]

File:Hanford Reach.jpg

I see no reason why it should, but added a template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Linking the image[edit]

File:Old_Hanford_farmhouse.jpg - The Internet Archive link is to the file, not the documentation

You can also find it here You have to drill down from here and go through the gallery, which is what the Commons description points to. (Note Manhattan Project id number) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aerial view of Hanford Construction Camp.jpg - the only source link is to the image itself, this makes it impossible to check the details.

Again, note the Manhattan Project id number. You can find the image here Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Driver at the Hanford Engineer Works.jpg ditto.

Ditto! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong source?[edit]

File:Prefabricated housing at Hanford Site 1944.jpg I'm not seeing the image at the link.

They changed the page! Switched to an archive link. (Note the Manhattan Project id number.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Fine, with a caveat[edit]

Flickr site claims copyright, but false copyright claims are common, especially as Flickr's default state is presuming copyright. DDRS is "Declassified Document Retrieval System" [5] - it's probably worth saying that.

Yes, these are from a big dump of declassified images. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richland High School.jpg

This is the other form you see sometimes. Instead of the D number being written on the negative, it is on a sign in the image itself. I like these because they also give us the exact date on which the image was taken. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old_Hanford_High_School_in_1954.jpg

Added Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hanford camp trailer park.jpg

Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richland housing area.jpg

Added. (Note the Manhattan Project id number.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine but have to call you up anyway[edit]

File:224-T finishing in Dec 1944.jpg From [6] "Thumbnail images have been added to Gerber's text by the Webmaster. Click on the thumbnail for a full sized image." - Like, I don't see how a photograph of a classified site wouldn't be US Army or the like, but.... I don't think this appears in the original source, but this, I think, is the original text, and every photo in it is photocopy-of-a-photocopy'd to oblivion.

(Note the Manhattan Project id number. The SECRET stamp has been whited out.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Fine[edit]

File:Hanford_Engineer_Works.png - Presuming that the book is a US Federal Government publication - and I don't see any reason to think it isn't - this is fine.

Yes. The book is the Army's official history of the Manhattan Project produced by the US Army Center of Military History. You can download a copy from here Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Assembled slug.jpg - Same as above.

This is from the Manhattan District History (MDH), a secret history of the project that Groves commissioned in 1944. It has now been declassified (mostly) and made available online (mostly) from here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:3766-NEG_Hanford_Airport_control_tower_under_construction.jpg - This threw me a bit as to where the information came from, but then I realised the file name on the archive site is "3766-NEG (1944) CONSTRUCTION OF HANFORD AIRPORT CONTROL TOWER.JPG" - So there's the information. The site itself confirms the copyright, so we're fine here

(Note the Manhattan Project id number.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hanford construction work force.jpg Even if this wasn't a US Federal Government publication, there's no copyright notice in the entire publication. I checked.

File:Group Shot (8474761680).jpg - Very obviously US Federal Government work; link makes that very clear. (Department of Energy's Flickr)

I particularly wanted to include it because it shows lots of black people working on the project.

File:HD.6B.437 (11324863236).jpg same as above.

(Note the Manhattan Project id number.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HD.4A.134_(10405869525).jpg Same again.

(Note the Manhattan Project id number.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HD.4A.132 (10405868435).jpg Same again.

(Note the Manhattan Project id number.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HD.12B.001 (11823724886).jpg Same again. File:Front Face of the reactor (full view).JPG - Standard Wikipedian-created-and-released work.

File:B Reactor Tube Loader.JPG - Ditto

File:Project cost summary - Hanford Engineer Works.jpg Source checks out. Clearly a declassified document.

I had trouble formatting it up, so I just clipped it from the MDH. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nagasakibomb.jpg - Very well documented.

@Adam Cuerden: Everything okay now? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I swear I said it was. Yes. Everything accounted for. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 00:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donner60 - Support[edit]

Review will start with Irradiation section.

  • "until Wilmington released the plans" > "until Dupont's executive committee at Wilimington released the plans" or similar?
    checkY TNX. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Zinn found evidence." > "Zinn found evidence that xenon caused the effect"?
    checkY Yes. Added a bit more about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Separation

  • "This removed lanthanides that bismuth phosphate process could not." > Insert "the" before bismuth?
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

End of the article; posting these comments and will read the article from the beginning to this point.

  • In last paragraph of lead: "Army" > "United States Army Corps of Engineers" or "United States Army"?
    checkY Both would be correct. Changed to "Manhattan District" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Land acquisition

  • "Finally there were two parcels of land designated as Area E, which was acquired only if necessary." Area E shows on the map but the article says nothing more about whether it was acquired in whole or in part and what it was used for.
    checkY Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richland

  • "Hiring a removalist..." Wikipedia redirects "removalist" to "Moving company." I think I am probably typical as an American who can confidently say that I have never read or heard the term "removalist" used for a moving company. Canada has a "Canadian Movers' Association" and one of their largest carriers is "Centennial Moving." I suggest using the linked term moving company or at most using both terms in the alternative with a link to moving company.
    checkY Changed as suggested. I had never heard this term, and I worked for one for a time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This completes my review of the article. Donner60 (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 Thanks. All comments are addressed. I support promotion of the article. Since this article now has the appropriate reviews and three supports, a consensus to promote now exists. Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2024 (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, 7 January 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

HMS Beaulieu[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk)

HMS Beaulieu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

HMS Beaulieu, a privately built 40-gun frigate, was snapped up by the Royal Navy before construction was completed. Resembling a merchant vessel more than a warship, she spent the beginning of her career in the backwater of the Leeward Islands. The ship returned to Europe in time to mutiny twice as part of the Nore mutiny, and then played a small part in the Battle of Camperdown. She spent the rest of the French Revolutionary Wars serving in the English Channel and Mediterranean, participating in one fierce cutting out expedition, and returned to the Leeward Islands when the Napoleonic Wars began. The frigate, unique in name and design, was paid off for a final time in 1806 after thirteen years of service. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Schierbecker[edit]

Gardiner posits that the Royal Navy chose not to keep Beaulieu there, despite her being one of the larger frigates, because she was "never highly regarded". Do we know why?

I could take a guess, but Gardiner doesn't actually specify. The full quote is "The purchased Beaulieu, which was never highly regarded, was an exception, being assigned to the West Indies expedition in 1793..."

Is Mr. Redhead's first name not known?

Sources don't give it.

Riou was invalided home Was his illness connected with his service on Beaulieu? Schierbecker (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I could guess, but the source doesn't say: "After being invalided home he was appointed to command the royal yacht Princess Augusta".

@Schierbecker: Hi, thanks for taking a look at this. I've replied above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schierbecker: Sorry to ping you again! Just checking whether you had more comments to add? Your edit summary suggested you might. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I'm supporting this. Sorry for ghosting you. Final question: Could you add who they recaptured Cato, Dauphin, Cabrus, Nymphe Harriet, Jenny, et al. from? Also more details if known (e.g. was there a fight?) Schierbecker (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Schierbecker: Unfortunately the sources don't provide more details. I would expect that there won't have been a fight, it's most likely that these ships only had prize crews when recaptured. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

I'll try to review this over the coming week or so. Hog Farm Talk 20:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a private venture - does this indicate that the ship was privately contracted by the Royal Navy instead of building it herself, or did Adams have his build this in anticipation of being able to sell this to the gov't?
  • The latter.
  • I'm a little unsure of the direct relevancy of the footnote about the timing of the payout of prize money for St. Lucia
  • Removed.
  • "Beaulieu was then present at the capture of the Russian hoy Leyden and Fourcoing" - I think some sort of brief introduction as to why the Royal Navy was capturing Russian vessels is necessary. It's indicated that the British were at war with the French, but it's not clear where the Russians are in all of this.
  • The sources do not state a reason why the Russian vessel was captured. I've enquired with a mind more experienced than mine, but they haven't managed to come up with anything either [7].
  • "In the ensuing fight thirteen men were wounded, of which one later died," - do we know which side of the scuffle the casualties were on?
  • Not recorded in my sources.
  • "On 9 October news reached Duncan that the Dutch fleet was at sea" - likewise there probably needs to be some sort of context here. Were the English and the Dutch already in a state of war, or is this a pre-emptive strike by the Dutch?
  • Added a few words in attempt to clarify without confusing; not sure if I've succeeded though.

I think that's it from me for now. Hog Farm Talk 02:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Hi, thanks for taking a look at this! I've responded to your comments above, although unfortunately not with the solid answers you probably hoped for! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting. Hog Farm Talk 23:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CPA[edit]

Hold my tea. Not really an expert nor am I really intrested in this era. Nonetheless I'll give it try to boost this nom. Will do after Hog's comments are addressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Hi, I've finished up with Hog Farm's comments, so whenever you're ready! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Commissioned in January 1793 by Lord Northesk" MOS:EGG here?
  • I don't think so, that's his name and how he will have been addressed
  • "similarly present at the capture of Saint Lucia" --> "similarly present at the capture of the island Saint Lucia"
  • Done
  • "herself part of the Nore mutiny" --> "herself part of the Nore mutinies" because the following sentence say there were two mutinies.
  • The mutiny is a larger event than just Beaulieu; multiple ships mutinied several times within it (and Spithead), and I believe "mutiny" to be correct
  • "but both attempts were defeated" Because why?
  • Not sure what you're asking here. The mutinies were defeated.
  • "frigate squadron based off Brest" --> "frigate squadron based off Brest, France" Because there are more places called Brest.
  • Done
  • "ship measuring 1,01979⁄94 tons burthen" Is it possible to convert this number to regular modern day long tons/tonnes? Because people like me who are not experts in the unit don't know how much the weight is.
  • Not that I would be able to do. This is how ships are described in the modern sources too, I would add
  • "was crewed by 280 men (from 1794 this was lowered to 274)" Why exactly?
  • Sources don't say
  • "in January 1793 by Captain Lord Northesk" MOS:EGG here?
  • See previous comment on this
  • "arriving off Saint Lucia on 1 April" --> "arriving off the island Saint Lucia on 1 April"
  • Done
  • "which was taken into Barbados" Add island here.
  • Done
  • "The officer of the watch called the alarm" Sounds like a high rank maybe add their name here?
  • Officer of the watch was a rotating position that all lieutenants (3 or 4) would have held. The individual isn't noted here
  • "Four were executed, with another" MOS:EGG here.
  • Removed
  • "the merchant brig Harriet on 3 December" Which nationality?
  • Added
  • "Together they recaptured the merchant ships Cato, on 6 December, Dauphin, on 14 December, and Cabrus and Nymphe" Same as above and Jenny.
  • Added
  • "on the blockade of Brest in a frigate" --> "on the blockade of Brest, France in a frigate"
  • Changed
  • "was completed some time during 1809.[7][8][82][83]" Maybe remove one citation here?
  • Believe in this instance all the citations are required for the sentence

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @CPA-5: Hi, thanks for volunteering to go through this so thoroughly! I've replied with my comments/changes above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Sources are high quality
  • Nicely formatted.
    Glasco (2001), Morris (2001), Wareham (1999): location?
    Should it be " Longman and Company" (title case)?
  • Spot checks:
    fn 34, 46, 67, 73 - okay
    Spotted the Captain Bligh

Great work here Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Thanks for going through these. The Marshall references are a template, I didn't decide them. Locations have been added. Captain Bligh?! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spotted him in the London Gazette while checking fn 46. Just letting people know I really did check all the spotchecked footbnotes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's him! Many people aren't aware that Bligh did have a career post-Bounty, and it was a successful one! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias[edit]

Stepping in as CPA-5 seems to have gone AWOL.

  • "She was designed and built by the shipwright Henry Adams at his shipyard, Buckler's Hard.." It would be nice to know in this article where that is.
  • Added
  • "..and initial fittings costed a total of £17,788." This should be cost, not costed? Also, consider replacing £17,788 with {{Inflation|UK|17,788|1793|fmt=eq|orig=yes|cursign=£|r=-5}}{{Inflation/fn|UK}} to get "£17,788 (equivalent to £2,200,000 in 2021)". If you do adopt this, do it again for "at the cost of £7,315" for the refit.
  • Thanks for that, very useful! Added.
  • A few instances of noun plus -ing that could do with rephrasing: "with Captain Lancelot Skynner assuming", "with Beaulieu having", "with her presence forcing", "with this being quelled", "with the Dutch commander surrendering", "with Poyntz leaving".
  • Changed.
  • "..between December of the same year.." As this is at the start of a section, and it has been a while since the year was mentioned, I'd explicitly state the year.
  • Done.
  • "..under the control of their boatswain, Mr Redhead. Redhead announced.." Rephrase to avoid the immediate repetition of "Redhead".
  • Done.
  • "..off the Texel." Why "the"? Oh, hold on. Should this link instead to Marsdiep, rather than the island?
  • Wikipedia and academic texts overwhelming uses Texel without "the", even for this time period. That said, you know the period better than I, and it's a minor point, so I'm not going to press it. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..was sent off by Duncan.." I don't think "off" is needed here.
  • Removed.
  • "..on 13 October these found Beaulieu." I'm not keen on this wording; it makes the rockets the active body; how about "..on 13 October these were spotted by Beaulieu." (or "by Beaulieu's crew.")
  • Changed.
  • "Together they recaptured the British merchant ships Cato, on 6 December, Dauphin, on 14 December, and Cabrus and Nymphe, on 15 December." Could you use some semi-colons to make this easier to read? "Together they recaptured the British merchant ships Cato, on 6 December; Dauphin, on 14 December; and Cabrus and Nymphe, on 15 December."
  • Changed.
  • "Maxwell's force having been on board Chevrette for only three minutes, the ship began to drift out of the bay." Not keen on this wording. Maybe a simpler "After Maxwell's force had been on board Chevrette for three minutes, the ship began to drift out of the bay."
  • Done.

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: That's the lot from me, nothing major. A nice and interesting article overall, good work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Hi, thanks for taking this up! I have responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:59, 7 January 2024 (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 Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Bill Madden (soldier)[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Bill Madden (soldier) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I've previously developed articles on Victoria Cross and George Cross recipients from South Australia, but am branching out. Madden's George Cross was the highest honor received by an Australian for service during the Korean War, and it was awarded for his determined resistance to his Chinese captors, which ultimately led to his death. His dogged determination was an inspiration to his fellow prisoners of war. This article recently went through GAN, and I reckon it is ready for ACR. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias[edit]

  • Per MOS:HYPOCORISM, remove "known as Bill Madden" from the first sentence.
  • "..during the eponymous campaign, during which he.." The close repetition of "during" makes this sentence a little awkward, try to rephrase.
  • "3 RAR's parent brigade.." MOS:NUMNOTES says to avoid beginning a sentence with a figure, although this is a slightly odd case.
  • "..included severe restrictions on the food he received, but he shared this with other sick prisoners." This sounds a little off. Maybe something more explicit? "..included severe restrictions on the food he received, but what he did get he shared with other sick prisoners."
  • "After the war ended, Farrar-Hockley wrote affectionately of Madden to his sister, Florence." It is unclear here whether Florence is Farrar-Hockley or Madden's sister.
  • Consider archiving online sources.

Nothing much wrong with this, nice work! Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias, all done except most of the archiving. Wayback is having trouble digesting the Parliament House, Trove, AWM and DVA urls, but I did the ADB one. I will try again later to see if it was a site issue. Thanks for taking a look, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no worries on the archiving, it was just a recommendation. Harrias (he/him) • talk 22:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HF

I'll look at this later this week. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting; I read through the article and have no concerns for A-Class. Hog Farm Talk 05:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright[edit]

Back soon! - Pendright (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • Madden served in the New Guinea and Bougainville campaigns in the latter stages of World War II, and returned to civilian life in 1947.
and "he" returned to
  • Madden participated with his unit in the constant offensives and counter-offensives of early 1951 before being concussed and captured during the April Battle of Kapyong.
constant offensives and counter-offensives -> against whom?
  • He was beaten and punished, and his physical condition deteriorated. Following a long forced march into North Korea, he died of malnutrition as a result of ill-treatment in November.
  • Since beaten is a form of punishment, should punished be more specfic or generalized?
  • November 1951
All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • Bill, as he was known, was working as a fruiterer's assistant when he was mobilised for service in World War II with the Militia on 26 May 1942 at Morisset near Newcastle, north of Sydney.[1][2]
Consider a comma after Morisset
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Military career

  • He was enlisted as a driver, and allocated a new AIF service number of NX173860.[4]
  • Drop the comma after driver
  • allocated "the" new AIF service number of NX173860.
  • He later served as a driver with the 5th Motor Ambulance Convoy Platoon on Bougainville during the campaign on that island, and then the 253rd Supply Depot Platoon on the island of Morotai in the Dutch East Indies.
  • on this island
went with "there" instead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and then "he served with" the 253rd Supply Depot
  • After the war ended his unit was then posted to Japan as part of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force.[1][4]
How about a comma after ended?
  • After leaving the army, Madden worked as a nurse at the psychiatric hospital in Morisset for two years,[2] and then as a moulder.[1]
Dropp the comma after years
  • On the day Madden joined the battalion near Pakchon, 3 RAR had its first engagement with Chinese forces, which had recently entered the war [in support of North Korea].
Suggest the above additio
  • On 25 January 1951, the United Nations forces launched an offensive aimed at reaching the Han River, and [they] were able to advance 60 km (37 mi) in two weeks.
Suggest the above addition
  • In early February, 3 RAR was again in reserve, this time [it was] in positions around Yeoju and [where] in the face of a Chinese counteroffensive, it participated in the relief of UN forces at Chipyong-ni later in February.
Suggest the above changes
  • [Later] I [i]n February, 3 RAR's parent brigade had been reinforced with a Canadian unit, [known as] the 2nd Battalion of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (PPCLI).
Suggest the above changes
It actually isn't clear in sources when in February this happened, and I don't think it needs [known as], that was its proper title. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Eighth Army line was advanced in stages with consolidation at each stage.
Is it the "U.S." Eighth Army?
The brigade then pushed forward to the "Utah Line" , with 3 RAR capturing two hills with the assistance of US air support.
Suggest U.S. rather than US
Either is fine in an Australian article as long as it is consistent, per MOS:US. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • After consolidation of the position, 3 RAR and its parent brigade were withdrawn into US IX Corps reserve, and handed over the [its]] captured positions to Republic of Korea (ROK) forces.[7]
Suggest the above changes
  • On the night of 22 April, the ROK forces on the "Utah Line" were heavily attacked by large Chinese forces and almost immediately gave ground, and then broke.
Drop the comma after ground
  • On the afternoon of 23 April the 27th Brigade was ordered to establish a blocking position north of the village of Kapyong.
Add a comma after April
  • Initially a precautionary measure, [but] by evening disorganised and panicking groups of ROK soldiers were moving south through the brigade position.
Suggest the aboce addition
  • There were two main battles within the 3 RAR perimeter, one in front of Hill 504, and one around battalion headquarters, and Chinese troops tried to infiltrate the Australian positions by mingling with the fleeing ROK troops.[8]
Suggest the above change
All of these done, with exceptions noted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capture and death

  • During the fighting withdrawal, Madden struggled with the effects of [his] concussion, and when urged to move by his platoon sergeant, he told him he was "stuffed" and needed a rest, but would "catch up".
Suggest the above changes
  • Madden highly valued his World War II service medal ribbons, and when the Chinese took them from him, he roundly abused them.
Suggest the above changes
  • In November 1951 he was one of a multinational group of prisoners who were forced marched 300 km (190 mi) north to Changsong on the Yalu River.
Add comma after 1951?
  • After the war ended, Farrar-Hockley wrote affectionately of [him] Madden to Madden's sister, Florence.
Suggest the above change
  • He had been with Madden when he died, and assured her that "he did not die in pain; and was only semi-conscious throughout the last two days of his life, at the end of which, unable to stand a final bout of enteritis, he passed away."[3]
He "was" with Madden... -> Ordinarily, "Was" is used to describe anything from the past that has already ended and there was no duration. "Had been", on the other hand, is used to describe something that has taken place in the past and continued for a definite duration.
  • Madden remained posted as missing in action until 1953, when his family was told of his death.
Drop the comma after 1953

@Peacemaker67: Done - Pendright (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of these done, thanks so much for your corrections, Pendright!
@Peacemaker67: Supporting - Happy New Year! Pendright (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass: Zawed[edit]

Disclaimer: I worked on this article back in 2012 to bring it up to B-Class, and made a couple tweaks since then. I think enough water has passed under the bridge since then that I can at least do a source review. I won't do an image review though as I added one of the images currently used.

  • Sources themselves look fine, and I am personally familiar with the work of Ashcroft and Horner
  • Formatting: The Department of Veterans' Affairs sources use a hyphen in the title when I *think* it should be an em dash?
Sure, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given history of nominator, I wouldn't normally worry about spot checks but for sake of completeness did some of the online sources: cites 4, 5, 14, 16. All of these generally check out, but in the case of cite 14, that doesn't give his sister's first name.

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Striking the comment RE sister's name, I had overlooked that it is given earlier in the article. Zawed (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, Zawed! And for your work in getting it to B-Class. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good, marking Source review as a pass. Zawed (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review – pass[edit]

Nice and easy. Consider adding alt text to the images, but I'm happy to mark this as passed. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/2024/Promoted&oldid=1223724563"