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

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Instructions

Requesting a review

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

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

Restrictions

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

Commenting

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

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

Comments Reviewing by Username

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

Support / Oppose Comments reviewing by Username

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

Comments Reviewing by Username addressed / not addressed

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

Requesting a review to be closed

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

After A-Class

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

Demotion

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

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

Current reviews

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

Piri Reis

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Rjjiii (talk)

Piri Reis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating my first article for A-Class review because it has passed a GA review, and I would like to improve it to Featured Article status in the future. I checked out a couple Featured Articles on military leaders to compare and saw that they had gone through and benefited from A class reviews (which seem rare for most subjects). Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Roon-class cruiser

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Roon-class cruiser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another article that has sat, languishing, waiting for me to get back into the A-class game ;) This is part of the Armored cruisers of Germany Featured Topic, and after this one, there'll only be five more articles to feed through ACR (and then FAC) before we get that fun little icon. Another bit of trivia: this article is one of the first articles on German warships I created, way back in August 2007; safe to say the article has come a long way since then. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

HF - support

I'll review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 00:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this; please ping me when Pendright's queries have been addressed. Hog Farm _talk 03:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Ha, I had gotten sidetracked with overhauling Battleship to keep its FA star last week, and had intended to come back here to address Pendright's comments today. No worries at all. Parsecboy (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• "With the rudder turned to its maximum extent, the ships lost up to 60 percent speed." - do the sources indicate how this compares to other designs of the time? It's hard to tell if this is normal or particularly poor; I suspect the latter.
  • Unfortunately, Groner doesn't say - just looking at the figures for other German warships of the period, it seems to have been comparable for ships of this size; SMS Blücher was slightly better at only 55% loss, but the other armored cruisers were the same as the Roons (which makes sense, since they're all developmentally related), as were the battlecruisers. The Bremen-class cruisers only lost 35%, for example, but they were significantly smaller. The Kaiser-class battleships were a bit worse at 66% loss.
• "Steam was provided to the engines by sixteen coal-fired water-tube boilers built by Düsseldorf-Ratinger Röhrenkesselfabrik (Dürr). Each boiler had 4 fireboxes for a total of 48." - I'm a bit confused by this - 4 fireboxes with 16 boilers would be 64 fireboxes
  • Apparently the math wasn't mathing, as the kids say!
• "The design staff projected that the ships would gain 0.5 knots (0.93 km/h; 0.58 mph) in speed over the earlier cruisers" - and we're later told that the Roon class had a top rated speed of knots. But our GA-class article on the Prinz Adalbert class has 20.5 as the highest rated speed of any of those ships. Do the sources attempt to reconcile this at all?
  • Dodson states the intended speed was 22 knots - clarified in the text
• "Design work commenced in 1916 to convert the ship into a seaplane tender; work was planned to last from 1917 to 1918 during a period of 20 months." - this doesn't seem to be quite the same as "In 1918, the design staff prepared plans to convert Roon into a seaplane tender based on earlier conversions that included the light cruiser Stuttgart." If the work has planned to begin in 1917, wouldn't the plans have been prepared before 1918? I can think of some ways that this would be resolved, but I think this could use clarification in the article.
  • Good point - I've clarified what happened exactly

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm _talk 02:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Hog Farm! Parsecboy (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Support from Pendright

Since HF has yet to post his review, I'll take the liberty of posting mine. Pendright (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Info box

• Wouldn't the 3 × triple-expansion steam engines be better placed under Installed Power?
  • Per the usage guide, the power field is for stuff that generates power (so the boilers in this case), but things that consume power to generate thrust go in the propulsion field.

Lead

• In November, the German fleet made the raid on Great Yarmouth, but on return to port at Wilhelmshaven, the fleet encountered heavy fog and had to stop off Schillig.

The comma after Wilhelmshaven is unneeded because it's one continuous action—they returned and encountered fog.

Removed

General characteristics and machinery

• Like the preceding Prinz Adalbert-class ships, Roon and Yorck were good sea boats; when the fuel bunkers were full they had a gentle motion.

they had a gentle motion -> Under what conditions?

Good question, but the source doesn't provide any clarification

• With the rudder hard over [(to its maximum extent)], the ships lost up to 60 percent speed.

Consider adding the above explanation

Reworded

• Each boiler had 4 fireboxes apiece for a total of....

apiece seems redundant

Good point

Armament and armor

• The ships' primary armament consisted of four 21-centimeter (8.3 in) SK L/40 guns mounted in two twin-gun turrets, one fore and one aft.[a]

mounted on

I think "on" would imply on top, i.e., on the roof of the gunhouse

I miss-read the sentence - my apology! Pendright (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• For close-range defense against torpedo boats, the ships carried a tertiary battery of fourteen 8.8 cm SK L/35 guns, which were mounted in individual casemates and pivot mounts in the superstructure.

mounted on

Same as above - the guns were in the casemates

Same as above - Pendright (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Service history

• Both vessels made long-distance cruises in the Atlantic in the late 1900s in company with I Scouting Group or the entire High Seas Fleet.

Could you show readers an example or two of such cruises?

Added one

World War I

• Roon continued to operate with the main fleet, taking part in the raid on Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby in December.[18][20]

Add a comma after Hartlepool

Good catch

• This was followed by several sweeps into the central Baltic in May and June to try to catch Russian vessels, which culminated in the Battle of the Åland Islands in early July; a group of Russian cruisers attacked several German vessels on a minelaying operation and Roon sortied to reinforce the German ships.

• This sentence has over 50 words - suggest breaking it into two sentences.

• Done

• Design work commenced in 1916 to convert the ship into a seaplane tender; work was planned to last from 1917 to 1918 during a period of 20 months. [Instead] The ship was stricken from the naval register on 25 November 1920 and scrapped the following year at Kiel-Nordmole.[27]

Add a transition word or phrase between these two sent6ences-> Transition (linguistics)

Probably worth mentioning that the war ended too, eh?

This is it - Pendright (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Pendright, I think I've addressed them all. Let me know if anything is still outstanding. Parsecboy (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

All good! Happy to support - Pendright (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• Alt text?
  • Added
• All of the images seem a little small to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
  • They're all set to default - I generally don't like to force them larger if they're just regular images. Parsecboy (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

• There is a sandwich between the Prinz Adalbert image and the bottom of the infobox.
  • Removed, unfortunately
• "As was customary for warships of the period, the ships were also equipped with four 45 cm (17.7 in) torpedo tubes." Maybe something like 'As was customary for warships of the period, the ships were also equipped with torpedo tubes; four 45 cm (17.7 in) tubes each.' or similar?
  • Good point, reworded
• "six 8.8 cm Flak guns". Why the upper-case F?
  • Probably too much German for me ;)
• "the Schillig roadstead outside the port to avoid running into the defensive minefields laid outside the harbor." Is it possible to avoid "outside" twice in one sentence?
  • Good catch, trimmed the last few words as probably redundant.

Well up to your usual standard. Just the trivia above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Gog! Parsecboy (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Source review

Hi Parsecboy, I will review 6 refs (~20% of the 28 refs here). My comments:

• Link to Holger Herwig?
  • Done
• Volume 8 of Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz needs an ISBN.
  • Oddly enough, I haven't been able to track one down - for whatever reason, they didn't include ISBNs in the paperback books, and Worldcat doesn't have an entry for Vol. 8 (you can see Vol. 6 and Vol. 7, for example, but they don't have one for Vol. 8) - I think the hardcopy verion only had 7 volumes in total, and only the paperbacks went to 10 (though I don't know that for sure). Amazon.de doesn't provide an ISBN either.
• Link to [1] as the URL for Pavlovich 1979?
  • Done
• Remove the "ltd." from Scheer 1920?
  • That I can do
• Add registration to the URL access parameter for Campbell & Sieche 1986?
  • Done
• #21: ok.
• Please provide quotes here of refs #6, #10, #15, #19 and #24.
  • I got Greger (ref #15) through my university library 10+ years ago and don't have it anymore.
  • For the rest:
    • #6: Fisher's "Committee on Designs" had yet a further surprise in store. Project HMS Unapproachable had reached fruition by 1906 with the "E" design of a special class of large armoured cruisers. The series was launched with the Invincible, built between April 1906 and March 1908 by W. G. Armstrong at Elswick under greater secrecy than even the Dreadnought. Designed to displace 17,000 tons, Invincible was driven by four Parsons turbines, and her eight 30.5cm guns were arranged in twin turrets (one fore, one aft, and two side diagonally offset). The increase in firing power and speed was accompanied by a reduction in armour. The "all big gun cruiser" during the Great War vindicated her armament at Falkland...Fisher's Dreadnought and Invincible "leaps", coupled with the other reforms affecting personnel, training, gunnery, tactics, and fleet concentrations, effectively blunted the German naval challenge on 1900.
    • #10: this is in a list of abbreviations: SK L/45: Schnellfeuerkanone Kaliber 45
    • #19: On 22 May 1913 she was commissioned with the crew from Yorck and following trials...
    • #24: another one I don't currently have, and Google Books snippet view is only partially useful with what I can now see: ...minutes the Bayan opened fire on the Roon from a distance of 62-64 cables as the two ships closed. The Roon returned the fire while the Luebeck engaged the Oleg. The Admiral Makaraov and Bogatyr were still out of range. Vice Admiral Bakhirev at once summoned the armored cruiser Ryurik to the battle zone, and some time later the battleships Slava and Tsearevich when he...

That's all from me. I would be much obliged if you could review this recent FAC nom of mine, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Mycale/archive1? Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Advanced Tactical Fighter

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Steve7c8 (talk)

Advanced Tactical Fighter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it recently passed GA assessment and has since been further revised in terms of content. Steve7c8 (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Nick-D

It's always good to see high quality articles on weapons programs. I'd like to offer the following comments:

• The first para of the lead is rather breathless as it's all one sentence. I'd suggest splitting it up.
• Ditto the second sentence of the second para in the lead
• The sentence starting with "Thus, the ATF would be a new air superiority fighter" is over-long and a bit confusing as a result
• "During Dem/Val, the ATF SPO program manager was Colonel James A. Fain, while the technical director (or chief engineer) was Eric "Rick" Abell. The director of ATF requirements was Colonel David J. McCloud of TAC," - I don't see a strong reason for naming these people given they're never referred to again in the article
• "Northrop was viewed as riskier because it was struggling with the B-2 and AGM-137 TSSAM programs in meeting cost, schedule, and predicted stealth performance" - the grammar is a bit off here
• Can anything be said about the implications of this program for the Joint Strike Fighter program? Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Maximiliano Hernández Martínez

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): PizzaKing13 (talk)

Maximiliano Hernández Martínez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is my third A-class nomination and my first biography nomination. Maximiliano Hernández Martínez was El Salvador's longest serving president, being in office from 1931–1934 and 1935–1944. He rose to power after a coup d'état that established El Salvador's 48-year-long military dictatorship that lasted until 1979. Due to the duration of his presidency, the things he did as president, and the impact he left on El Salvador's history, MHM has had a lot written about him. While he is at least somewhat known in El Salvador, as far as I can see he is not at all known outside of Latin America. I have the goal of making the article of every Salvadoran president as good as it can possibly be (I'm a long ways from achieving that at the moment), and so I want to try to get this article to A-class since I personally believe it stands the best chance out of any president's article of reaching this assessment. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 05:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Meligalas

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Ashmedai 119 (talk)

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

This article was translated from Greek Wikipedia, where it is a FA, a while ago from Cplakidas, the undersigned having been the editor who contributed most to its original version. It has passed a GA review, without many critical comments from the reviewer. I am nominating this article for A-Class review, because I think it fulfills the A-Class criteria and I would also greatly appreciate comments by encyclopedia editors who have concerned themselves with military matters, hoping that there will be improvements that will eventually lead the article to being a Featured Article. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Borci na ELAS.jpg - this needs a US licensing tag as well, since Wikimedia servers are in the US
  • Resolved
    • This photo does not have a date of publication, so how do we know that either one is correct? Be aware that creation and publication are two very different things. Without a date of publication, it's basically impossible to firmly establish copyright status in the US.
      • The additional licensing tag was added by the undersigned based on a reasoning that was developed in the context of this discussion at the Commons "Village pump". Given the original uploader's response to my request for concrete details re publication etc, this seems to be the most satisfactory description of its copyright status that is achievable. If you hold that the (current) conclusion of the discussion in the Commons is unsatisfactory or plainly wrong, might I propose that you make the case for that in the Commons, so that other users, who suggested that this licensing tag is appropriate, can contribute their opinion regarding the matter? Ashmedai 119 (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
        • Carl's one of the people I go to with copyright questions, so if they're fine with it, we're probably ok. Parsecboy (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
• File:BRAVOS-1940.jpg - same as above
  • Resolved
    • Same as above - without a date of publication, how do we know what its copyright status is?
      • Please see above. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
• All other images check out, either Bundesarchiv photos or works of current users
• Please remove periods from captions that are not full sentences
  •  Done
• In terms of placement, you have some MOS:SANDWICHing going on in the "German takeover and the establishment of the Security Battalions" section, which should be avoided.
  • Resolved

That's it for images. Parsecboy (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out these issues, Parsecboy. They have all been resolved now. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The licensing issues still need more information to be resolved. Parsecboy (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

Most of the issues with this article seem to be in the translation.

Lead

• Mention that the ELAS was a (mainly communist) left wing resistance organisation, as this knowledge is necessary to understand the last paragraph
  •  Done
• "from 1942" no comma
  •  Done
• "remains a point of reference and an antifascist rallying cry for the far-left in Greece" I have no idea what is meant here
  • Apologies for this, but in my non-native English speaker mind, this does make sense, especially given that I have in consideration the last section of the article that this sentence tries to summarize. Perhaps you would have a proposal to rewrite this (e.g. by eliminating the phrase "point of reference", if this is the confusing bit) after you have read the last part of the article?

Political and military background

• " the wing commander Dimitris Michas" -> Wing Commander Dimitris Michas
  •  Done
• " in the mountainous areas of Messenia" Where is that?
  • I added a wikilink to Messenia and the phrase "in southwestern Peloponnese".
• " was established as a Resistance group", " the local Resistance groups" lower case R
  •  Done, though I have my doubts this is correct [the Resistance is a historical phenomenon, as in "the Renaissance artists", "the Enlightenment thinkers"]
• " after forging ties with royalist networks chiefly in the area and in Athens" In what area?
  • "In the area" here denoted the Peloponnese and I substituted it with the phrase "in the Peloponnese".
• " but these failed" -> " but these efforts failed"
  •  Done
• "such as Dionysios Papadongonas and possibly also Tilemachos Vrettakos, respectively " Delete "respectively"
  • "Respectively" here serves to denote that Papadongonas sought help from the Italians and Vrettakos from the Germans -- if it is to be removed, how are we to distinguish between the two?
• " the German major general Karl von Le Suire" capitalise "major General" (link to Generalmajor)
  •  Done
• "Apart from the "Evzone Battalions" (Ευζωνικά Τάγματα) established by the collaborationist government of Ioannis Rallis, in late 1943 independent "Security Battalions" (Τάγματα Ασφαλείας, ΤΑ) began being raised" What do we mean by "Apart from" Is "In addition to" meant?
  • Resolved
    -- changed to "In addition to"
• "After a request of the collaborator prefect of Messenia" -> "request from"
  •  Done
• " ordered in February" -> " ordered in February 1944" ?
  •  Done
• "the Security Battalion under the command of Major Panagiotis Stoupas, that arrived" Delete comma

 Done

• "After a request of the collaborator prefect of Messenia, Dimitrios Perrotis, the Rallis government ordered in February a municipality-supported Security Battalion to be formed in Kalamata, which merged in March with the Security Battalion under the command of Major Panagiotis Stoupas, that arrived from Athens in Meligalas, a location that controlled the road from Kalamata to Tripolis and the entire area of the south." This entence is too long and very confusing. Break it up.
  •  Done
• "a town held by a German garrison at Meligalas" This doesn't make sense.

Resolved

I've edited the sentence to "Meligalas became the first town held by a German garrison to be attacked by ELAS"

• " sent there Aris Velouchiotis" -> "sent Aris Velouchiotis there"
  •  Done
• "Velouchiotis' task was to reorganize the 3rd ELAS Division, with a total strength of some 6,000 men" He is trying to reorganise it, reducing it to 6,000 men?
  • No, this was the 3rd Division's total strengh.
• "Following the assassination of Georganas by the OPLA of Kalamata" Who were they?
  • Resolved
    -- added a phrase about the OPLA with a reference to a recent monograph about the OPLA of Athens
• " members of the collaborationist governments" There is more than one?
  • Yes, from April 1941 onward three collaborationist governments formed in occupied Greece, under Georgios Tsolakoglou, Konstantinos Logothetopoulos and Ioannis Rallis.
• "proscribing the death penalty for high treason to those who" -> "for those who"
  •  Done
• "The British desired the maintenance of the status quo until the arrival of their forces and the Papandreou government, and above all wanted to avoid German arms and equipment from falling into the hands of the partisans." Italicise "status quo"
  •  Done
• " British lieutenant general Ronald Scobie", "Greek lieutenant general Panagiotis Spiliotopoulos" capitalise and link "lieutenant general"
  • Resolved
    capitalised and added links
• " Walter Blume, the head of the German security police (SD)" add "in Greece"
  •  Done
• "Colonel Papadongonas" Delete "Colonel"
  •  Done

more to come... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• "distributed the c. 50 light machine" We don't use circa in English except for dates. Replace all instances in the article.
  •  Done replaced all instance
• "The attackers, however, " Delete "however"
  •  Done
• "to approach the besieged Battalionsts, to facilitate their surrender" Delete comma
  •  Done
• "the invasion of Meligalas by civilians" "invasion" is not the right word here
  •  Done
• "the Battalionists's " Delete "'s"
  •  Done
• "or even the local EAM authorities" -> "and even the local EAM authorities"
  •  Done
• "in some occasions the families " -> "on some occasions the families"
  •  Done
• Gerolymatos, André (2018) is not used
  • Resolved
    reference removed
• Theodoropoulos, Ilias (1998) needs a publisher.
  • This was a self-publication, there is no publisher mentioned in the book.

I strongly urge that this article be copyedited. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• • As many of the problems you raised were not detectable by my eyes, I am not sure I would be up to the task and I am wondering if you would have someone to suggest in this regard. Thanks, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• It may be appropriate to withdraw this nomination and run it through WP:GOCER (and possibly WP:PR) before renominating. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Current reassessments

Please add new requests below this line