Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2010/Failed

Failed

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.

---

• No consensus to promote at this time. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

First Crusade

Nominator(s): —MC10 (T•C•GB•L)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is currently a GA, it passes all of the five criteria listed here, and some more input for FA would be appreciated. Any suggestions and requests for improvement are welcome. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Skimming the article, I'm impressed with the language, scholarship, and breadth. But the lead section, particularly the first paragraph, is hopelessly POV, in the sense that the guys on the other side would disagree with just about all of the phrasing and ideas. There are three perspectives on the First Crusades (I prefer the "s" but won't push it), and each perspective deserves representation in the lead:
  • The perspective currently embodied in the first paragraph.
  • The perspective of the defenders: after 461 years of relative (by the standards of the time) stability, enlightenment, and tolerance for other religions and other points of view, some invaders came, committed a number of atrocities, broke all their promises concerning what would happen with the conquered lands, and then left, committing more atrocities on the way home.
    • Question: Are these "invaders" the Seljuq Turks or crusaders? —mc10 (u|t|c) 05:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Understood that the Seljuqs were also brutal; I'm talking about the Knights. - Dank (push to talk) 06:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Alright, thanks for the clarification. —mc10 (u|t|c) 03:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The perspectives of the various Western rulers: most of them had various goals and subgoals which had little to do with reclaiming Jerusalem and everything to do with expanding their reach or strengthening their hold on power. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• I won't oppose while I'm on vacation. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• I see you've been working on the article for a while now, which is great, but this subject is a massive one, and a lot of Wikipedians have worked on it for years. It would be best to notify the major contributors if you haven't already; we need to see if they currently have time to respond to any questions that come up. If not, this may not be the best time for an A-class review, but I don't want to jinx it; we'll see. - Dank (push to talk) 15:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I have notified the major contributors to the article. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Considering the above, you may find this editorial helpful. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Noted. —mc10 (u|t|c) 02:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. No progress. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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.

---

• No consensus to promote at this time. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Operation Doomsday

Nominator(s): Skinny87 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets all of the criteria, but I'd also like to see how it would fare further up the chain. As far as I know, this article covers everything I've been able to find in english-language sources. I suspect there would be more in Norwegian, but I can't find them, let alone access them. I've also scoured my sources for anything on the liberation of Norway, and found very little I could add for context - it seems to be one of those areas very few historians are interested in. Skinny87 (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments This is a very good article, and I'm close to supporting it, but I think it needs a little more work:
  • It seems more accurate to say that the operation was conducted 'following the end of the Second World War in Europe' rather than 'during the Second World War'

Added, that was an easy one!

• • The first paragraph probably goes into too much detail, and is unclear as a result - it should provide a high-level summary of this operation (eg, where the 1st AB division landed, that the operation was successful, etc).

That's the first para of the lede, right? Just to be clear as I'm going. Skinny87 (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's right Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Still a tad rusty at ledes, but how does that read?

I've simplified it a bit further Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• • I was a bit suprised to read that the initial occupation force planned for Norway "was composed primarily of Norwegian troops, plus a British contingent (initially 52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division)" given that the Free Norwegian Army was very small (only a battalion or at most a brigade, from memory) - are you sure that this is accurate?

I did make a small mistake. Otway states that the Norwegian element was 'all Norwegian troops who had been training in Scotland', which I've amended the article to show. Hart also makes the point that Force 134 also included the 12,000 Norwegian police in Sweden, and I've made this clear. Unfortunately, that's all I have on the composition of 134.

• • "4th Parachute Brigade, had been disbanded and its battalions merged with those of 1st Parachute Brigade in the aftermath of the Battle of Arnhem.[7] and was replaced by 1st Independent Polish Parachute Brigade" is a bit unclear - this should probably be two sentences

Indeed, and I've gone and done this.

• • "There were also fears that the German forces might refuse to surrender and resist the Allied occupation forces instead, as some pockets of resistance had done in the rest of Europe" is also over-complex and repeditive

Yes, I see what you mean. I've rewritten it, taking out the last part of that sentence as it isn't really needed for context, and merged in the Kriegsmarine part. What do you think?

Looks good

• • Can you expand on what the resistance from U-Boat captains was?

Baynes literally just says 'resistance', but I've posted queries to MILHIST and SHIPS to see if anyone can shed more light on this. I have to say that I'm rather intrigued myself - was it bluster, or gunfire?

Madsen, which I've now added for a quote, has some pages on Norway. But unlike the other sources, he doesn't mention any resistance from U-Boat captain's in Norway at all. Just a fairly smooth operation by very few Allied personnel. So I'm stumped for the moment. Skinny87 (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just checked my copy of Clair Blair's Hitler's U-Boat War and he has nothing on the topic (his coverage of the surrender of the U-boat forces at the end of the war is surprisingly brief what what are two incredibly detailed books). Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Also, the statement that this was the only cause of problems seems to partially contradict the previous sentence that " they were greeted enthusiastically by the Norwegian population in Oslo, and encountered little resistance from German troops" which indicates that there was also some resistance in Oslo)

That might just be my poor writing, as there wasn't any resistance in Oslo as far as I know. Does it look okay now?

I have a query here. I have the following from Hart, p. 248: "Immediately after Bohme surrendered, Mil-org's highly-organized and well-armed troops, some 40,000 strong, emerged into the open throughout the country to carry out the peace-keeping role for which they had been trained. These forces not only had to prevent the Wehrmacht from sabotaging power stations and communications, but also had to oversee the movement of German troops from their quarters in Norwegian towns and villages to their alloted reservations. It required considerable tact and firmness both to get German forces into their reservations and to prevent Norwegian retaliation." That does elaborate slightly on what happened to the Germans as they surrendered, but it's so vague and doesn't really mention the paratroopers themselves that I'm wary about adding anything using it. That's the only mention of its kind in my sources - what do you think? Skinny87 (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• • "doing all they could to make their time in the country a positive one" makes it sound like the division was on holiday!

Yes, I see what you mean. I deleted that, it's rather superfluous given the rest of the sentence anyway.

• • How did the division discover the fate of the men of Operation Freshman? (and I think that the amount of detail on this operation could be reduced a bit) Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything out specifically about how the found out. I reduced the detail as well - is is still too large?

Looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent comments, Nick. I'll start working on them immediately. Skinny87 (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Righto, that should be everything now. Skinny87 (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments now addressed Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments on the lead section:
• "air-transported portion": too informal. - Dank (push to talk)
• "between 9th-11th May": "The 9th" is okay but "9th May" isn't; see WP:DATE. Also, no hyphen in number ranges of any kind. Also, "between" requires "and", not a dash (per discussions at WT:MOS, I'll hunt up a link if you want it). - Dank (push to talk)
• "occupation force": see WP:EGG. "Force 134, the occupation force." - Dank (push to talk)
• "Planning for the occupation of Norway had begun in mid-1943, with the units assigned to it known as Force 134.": Omit the "with" clause. - Dank (push to talk)
• "The British contingent for Doomsday was initially 52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division, but was later replaced by the 1st Airborne Division": There's a missing "the". - Dank (push to talk)
• "was delivered to General": not wrong, but better is "was delivered on 8 May to General". - Dank (push to talk)
• "Despite fears of continued German resistance, the division encountered few problems.": Not a big deal, but I'd prefer "The division encountered little of the expected German resistance." - Dank (push to talk)
• "During its time in Norway, the division helped welcome back ...": not wrong, but the implied "helped ... look" and "helped ... protect" are a little tenuous. One alternative is: "The division's duties in Norway included ...". - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

All done except the date change - I'm rather confused over what I have to do there, date MoS was never my strongest point. Skinny87 (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• "the command of Headquarters Scottish Command, which had been commanded ...", "British High Command hoped that Thorne taking command of Scottish Command": Each has one "command" too many. - Dank (push to talk) 22:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That's just been dealt with, and I think that's everything! Skinny87 (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral because of the outstanding opposes. - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

SupportComment - some prose work is needed:

• Lead, "looked after Allied ex-prisoners of war held captive prior to the German surrender" Obviously they had been held captive if they are ex-prisoners of war - you can probably remove after "war" as being redundant.
• Lead, "when it transferred back to Britain and was disbanded two months later". You have the division taking action "it transferred" and then action being taken to it "was disbanded". Either say "was transferred...was disbanded" or "it transferred...and disbanded". Also true at the end of the Aftermath section.
• Background, "in the aftermath of the unconditional surrender of Germany since mid-1943." This could be read as Germany had been surrendering since mid-1943...
• Do we need three redlinks to Operation Apostle in the first three paragraphs (one in lead, one in background, one in infobox)?
• Background, "In its place Thorne was later given the". Is "later" really necessary - it seems obvious that it was later
• 1st Airborne Division, "This was an important port which would be used by the Royal Navy to sweep the surrounding waters for mines." The port wasn't going to be used to sweep for mines - it was used as a base to sweep for mines (I'm assuming).
• Occupation duties, "Although somewhat nervous given the group's small size". Were they nervous or was the population nervous?
• Occupation duties, "None of the men who survived the crashes remained alive for very long, and were executed shortly after capture." The first clause is partially redundant to the second - perhaps reword to something like "The men who survived the crashes were executed shortly after being captured."
• Just as a note, dmy dates don't have commas in them, see WP:DATES. I think I got all of them, but just FYI.

The research, sources and images look good, but the prose needs a bit of polishing. (Note, I edit conflicted with Dank, so there might be some repetition here). Dana boomer (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for this. I knew that prose would be the main problem, so I'll start combing it through next. Skinny87 (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, I've hit all of the listed prose above. I'll go through the article myself to look for things, but as I said it's always been my weakness. Would you have the time to kindly go through it, if possible? If not, I'll try and find another copy-editor. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just one of my comments left, plus I agree with Dank's first comment (on the first sentence) which hasn't been dealt with yet. I've made a few more copyedit tweaks (I had gone through fairly thoroughly before posting my comments here), feel free to revert if you don't like them. Dana boomer (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There's been a whole host of copy-edits to the lede, and I think your last point has been solved now! Thanks once again for the help! Skinny87 (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good now. Thanks for the quick responses. Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments Most of the grammar is to my satisfaction to be honest (post adjustments highlighted above), so only 2 comments to make really:

• I really think that the Operation Infobox is more appropriate for an operation of this nature (that occurred after the war, didn't result in a conflict and has no meaningful statistics for one side). In fact I think you can put more information into it than the conflict one allows.

Yes, I see what you mean. Replaced the infobox and added some more details, ie casualties. Skinny87 (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Is is possible to flesh out the SAS Brigade info a little? The link is a redirect to the general SAS article with only a sparse bit of history about their organisation at this time. Interestingly though it does mention French and Belgian units.

Otherwise I think its great (but I would say that as I passed its GA!). Ranger Steve ^Talk 20:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look around and see what I can find, but no promises unfortunately. Skinny87 (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Gah, no dice thus far. I have a few SAS books, but even the latest one by Asher doesn't have more than a sentence on Norway, and even then it doesn't mention the Brigade itself. Still, I'll keep on trying. Skinny87 (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Article is POV.

I would characterize this article as significantly biased toward the British POV. There is no description of the German forces in Norway beyond a count and commander. Their distribution (geographic and military-hierarchical) is not given at all; even the major units (like, I'm guessing from 5 minutes Googling, 20th Mountain Army) are not identified. This should include at least a brief accounting of what those forces were expected or ordered to be doing before the surrender arrived (defense? suppression of dissent? preparing a new offensive of some sort? withdrawing to Germany proper?)

Lesser issues:

• Who was responsible for identifying and establishing the "collection points" for disarmament? Where were they?
• Was the collection and disarmament completed by the 1st Airborne or still ongoing when they left?
• Characterize if possible the extent of the mine-clearing problem: where, how many, etc.
• Was there any civilian leadership in Norway that needed to be dealt with (either collaborators or Germans), or was Norway under military rule at the time?
• I'm a big fan of maps; this article doesn't have one. (Show Nazi unit dispositions, at least on large scale, and the operation's key points.)
• Do we know who the diplomats/Heralds were (on both sides)?
• Did the commanders (Bohme and Thorne/Urquhart) ever meet? A description of some first contacts would be useful; as it is described now, troops land and seem to suddenly be in control, and there is no obvious transition of power. (I realize there might not be one; this needs to be made more explicit if so.)

It's a decent job, Skinny, but you've only told part of the story. I'd be somewhat surprised if there aren't sources to tell at least some of the other side's story. Magic♪piano 18:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. Yes, now I look it over of course I see the massive blind spot I've had. I guess I should archive this now - plenty of work to do, and I suspect a lot of it will be impossible to find in English sources. Well, thanks for helping finding these anyway, it's much appreciated; it would have been embarrassing if I'd tried to go to FAC with those gaps! Skinny87 (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I found some interesting things while Googling that go part of the way; I'll leave pointers on the talk page. Magic♪piano 19:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

I have to agree with Magicpiano; as currently structured the article needs far better coverage of the Germans' actions. If this is done then I'd suggest renaming the article to Liberation of Norway 1945 or somesuch as it would have much more comprehensive coverage of the whole surrender/liberation than just the British piece of the operation.

However, it could be reworked as the British occupation/liberation only as implied by the title. --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a seperate article (Doomsday, the 1st Airborne section) to Apostle (the entire liberation of Norway) just to let you know. It's simply that the latter hasn't been written yet due to a lack of sources, and I'd oppose altering the article from the focus on 1st ABN. Just FYI. Skinny87 (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Skinny87, great work on this, even if it's just 1st Airborne Division. Please do try to add a little on the German forces/actions. This is because, as you say, it's going to be a while before Apostle is written, and meanwhile yours will be the default Apostle article. Have you linked this article into the History of Norway article and its' appropriate century-or-whatever subdivision articles? Buckshot06 (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Co-ordinator comment (not part of review): This ACR will be due for closing shortly (in 2 days), given that there are two opposes it would most likely need to be closed as "no concensus to promote". Before this happens, though, I just wanted to check whether or not these opposes still stood. It appears to me (from an uninvolved perspective) that the nominator might have addressed these concerns. As such, would those who opposed mind stating explicitly whether or not they are still opposed, or are happy with the changes. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Although a fair amount of work has been done to address my bias concerns, I don't think the work is complete. Most of the items I listed under "Lesser issues" above remain unaddressed. I didn't really expect Skinny (nor did he, the way I read his response to my comments) to address all of my issues in the timeframe of this review. Thus, I still oppose. Magic♪piano 15:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • No worries, cheers for clearing that up. Anotherclown (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Unless I'm mistaken from reading the article and the reviews above it would seem to me that the POV issues have been largely resolved (although the opposes haven't been struck yet);
  • Maybe I'm being dense but I was a little confused as to how Operation Doomsday fitted in to Operation Apostle - could a sentence be added to clarify this?
  • Overall I think this article is quite good though and I will be happy to support if the other issues have been resolved. Anotherclown (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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.

---

No consensus to promote at this time. EyeSerene^talk 09:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Arado Ar E.381

Nominator(s): WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down)

Prior nom here

I am listing this at A-class review because it has failed a previous A-class review and I feel I have met all the concerns raised there. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 22:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I found this article to be very interesting, but I don't think that it meets the A class criteria yet:
  • I have to say I'm confused about whether this aircraft ever existed — the last paragraph of the 'Development' section states that it was never built, but the remainer of the article talks about the aircraft's actual capabilities. If it wasn't built the article should refer to the design rather than the aircraft itself to avoid this confusion.
    • I've used a future tense in most of the article. If you still have objections, label individual sentences or paragraphs for correction. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 00:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Most of the article is actually written in the past tense (eg, 'The aircraft was powered by', 'The fighter's fuel capacity was sufficient', 'After an attack the fuel was exhausted and the pilot had to glide back to the ground,', etc). Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Regex  Done. Check for me if it is ok now. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 21:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
          • As somebody just pointed out with this edit, this reads better, and is usually accepted even among other cancelled projects (as far as I know of.) WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 23:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
            • That doesn't really remove the problem; it appears that this article is about a design that never made it past the early stages of development (much less ever flew), yet this isn't specified in the lead and the wording in the article is unclear (for instance, what's meant by 'prototypes were designed and conceived'?). Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
              •  Done WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
                • I don't think that it is resolved actually — the article still says that this "was a fighter aircraft" when it wasn't, and the tense and tone is maintained throughout the article. This results in a misleading and confusing article. Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
                  • Derild4921 completed copyedits, check again if you have questions. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 23:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "Its intended usage was the interception of American and British bombers after closing the firing distance to a minimum, thus increasing odds of hitting the target" this is written in the passive voice and (largely as a result) is unclear
    • Its supposed to be passive and unclear. How could you be bold and clear about a project that never even flew? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 00:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
      • "These aircraft were intended to intercept American and British bombers and attack them from a short range, thereby increasing the odds of hitting their target" or similar would work. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
        •  Done WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 22:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It's probably more accurate to say that the project was 'abandoned' rather than 'cancelled' at the end of the war as this implies that there was still some form of governing authority which cancelled the aircraft
    •  Done WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 00:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Why was 'gaining a tactical advantage by placing excessive stress on the man in cockpit' a 'Nazi concept'?
    • I don't know. I'm waiting for the source to find out. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 21:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Renneberg and Walker doesn't state why, it just states it. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 23:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Am I correct in reading the article to state that the designs were redeveloped after it was determined that the G forces 'exceeded human capabilities'? If not, it's confusing to say in one sentence that the pilots would certainly die and then in the next that they could survive if they flew in a prone position
    •  Done WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 00:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Do any of the sources talk about the practicality of this concept? From my perspective, it would seem that this was a very bad idea — the carrier aircraft would have been slaughtered by Allied fighters (which roamed freely rather than provided close defence to bomber formations) and it's hard to see how the Arado Ar E.381 pilot would have ever spotted any targets given his constricted vision, much less have safely landed the aircraft after combat sorties. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    • No they do not. The aircraft was designed to be small so it could present a smaller target to the guns of the fighters and bombers (this is stated in the article). The pilot had a virtual bubble of vision forward and to most of the side and, concerning the vision toward the bottom, it was probably better than contemporary fighters, according to the images from the sources. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 00:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Given that these aircraft seem to have had a similar rationale to the Me 163, but were much more vulnerable before attacking their targets and probably had a lower chance of landing safely, it's hard to see why they'd be more successful than that failed design. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
        • This was a last ditch resort to save the Third Reich. I don't think the Germans cared what the pilot saw or what chances he had of landing, as long as he stopped come of the devastating Air Force raids. Besides, the Me 163 was not a failure, the rationale for these designs were relatively good for the circumstances. The Me 163 could have changed the course of the war had the Germans started the program earlier and fixed some of the problems plaguing the engines. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose depths of research M Renneberg, M Walker - 2003 Science, technology, and national socialism ; I still find it fairly suspicious that there are no other M-Z last name authors cited. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Look, I responded to this at the last review. I've searched Google Books, as well as my local library system (KCLS). If you find this source authored by a guy with a A-M last name, ping me on my talkpage. I'm also waiting for an interlibrary loan of the book Sturm suggested. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 00:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    • A1 is fairly intransigent, "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge". Perhaps you should not request an A class assessment while the article does not "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge". In the meantime, Renneberg and Walker 2003 is available by google books for your consultation; and includes high quality archival research on the purposive function of the device &tc. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
      •  Already doneWe used it beforeare using it, and we are using Krantzhoff. Does that address your concern? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 00:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• One thing i noted is missing is whether or not any of the prototypes were preserved and if so where is there location, if they were not preserved mention what happened to them if the data is available.XavierGreen (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • No data as of now. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 20:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
    • None were built, so none could be preserved. The example in the infobox image is a mockup. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 23:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • In that case the infobox caption needs to be changed so it isn't labeled a 'prototype', which is something much more advanced than a mockup. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
        •  Done WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Of the first seven concerns I brought up at the FAC, one has been removed and the other six haven't been addressed. - Dank (push to talk) 02:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Your fourth point does not have any basis. It's supposed to get as close as it can without crashing and fire. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 20:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Still opposing on prose, but if the other opposes are dealt with, I'll do the rest of the copyediting myself since the article is so short, and then support. - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
    • They have been dealt with. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 22:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: given that the article has been moved so that the "Ar." designation has been removed from the title, I suggest removing this from the article as well. For instance in the lead, infobox, Development section, etc. Otherwise it will confuse readers, IMO. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

YDone. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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.

---

Closed without consensus to promote -- Ian Rose (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship

Nominator(s): TomStar81 (Talk), WP:OMT

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... after months of work and many good suggestions from a many different people I have judged that the majority of the article's issues have been addressed, either entirely or to some greater or lesser extent. At this point then it seems reasonable to me to move the article into the realm of the A-class articles, and to place before the editors of our great project these Iowa-class battleships for consideration of a promotion to A-class. I am of the opinion that the newer version and the adjustments made to the article in the wake of the PR have made this a stronger, more reliable sourced article than it was a year ago when it demoted from FA-class. I am open to further suggestions for improvement, and should be able to move to address any such issues in a timely manner. The previous ACR is here. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comments: I may be biased here, but I think I'm detached enough to offer a good opinion. I'm just barely short of supporting here.
  • A1: None of the citations themselves seem to be in error, with one possible exception. Since this is ACR and not FAR, I'd advice you to be a bit more consistant in the use of wikilinks in citations (i.e. NVR and DANFS are linked to thier articles a few times, but some of the authors, publishers, and a few titles have articles that aren't linked to). Nothing seems to jump out as lacking a citation; and while I have been able to verify only a tiny fraction of the references, I firmly believe virtually all of them to be reliable. One odd thing though: the Camp book (which seems to be about the 2004 battle in Fallujah) is a citation for an event that happened in the Gulf War? It's possible, but seems unlikely to me without being able to grab the book myself.
    • Here's an electronic copy of Camp's book with the page cited, it opens with a rehash of the first gulf war and the UAVs that fought in it, citing the famous Pioneer battleship surrender, which I in turn cited here. As far as uniformity is concerned, should I put all the links related to the citations in the bibliography section? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
      • That would probably be better, so you only have the link once.
        • Got it. I'll see to this soon.
  • A2: I believe we are about as good as we can get here. The only possible exception could be that teh "background" section may be a tad long, but the only part that jumps out to me as unnecessary is the Bureau of Ordnance/Bureau of Construction and Repair mismash (there are other places that could be tightened). No bias I can see, but that's just my perspective.
    • What can I say? I like background information on the subject material. Perhaps its a part of me that came out during the years I spent as a historian in training at UTEP :) I can trim it down, or remove it, but I think I'll take a wait and see approach for this one at the moment and see if others have an opinion on the matter one way or the other. I will trim and/or remove the material if consensus emerges that the reduction of background material would be the best move for the article, until then I am going to keep it in.
      • Nick noted that it could use a trimming. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I've deleted a sizable percentage of the background section, with an extreme degree of reluctance. If the absence of legitimate information somehow helps the article advance then I suppose I'll learn to love it. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • A3: Structure is good. All of the work we did during the peer review paid off here.
  • A4: No major stylistic issues. There are a couple of spots where British English inexplicibly popped up (WP:ENGVAR), and a couple of measurements that ought to be using {{convert}}. Usage of {{USS}} and the like should be consistant (there are plenty of links with manual italics), though this isn't a deal-breaker. Some of the date formatting is a bit inconsistant, especially in the references (recommend you use {{use dmy dates}} and use month names instead of numbers). There are also a couple of the many redirects that ought to be fixed, like the degree symbol in Battle 360° (I thought most of the redirects were fixed during the PR?). There are also some redlinks that are unlikely to be made into articles any time soon and can probably be removed.
    • Would another copyedit pass by a different user help? I've had a couple of people volunteer to copyedit articles I've been working on, and I am sure if I asked an outside editor would be happy to look through and correct the issues.
      • I've taken a stab at removing the redirects in the article, and the result is a roughly 90% reduction of these links across the article. I've also fixed the battle 360 degree link. I'll take as stab at the redlink issue at some point this week. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Redirects look better, but your template use is still a random grab-bag. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • A5: File:USS Kentucky (BBG-1) concept artwork.jpg needs a fair-use rationale for this article as well. There are a couple of images that should be staggered left-right, like File:USS New Jersey BB-62 salvo Jan 1953.jpeg to avoid excess whitespace at different resolutions.
    • I'd forgotten about the fair use rational, but it should be fixed now. On the matter of image staggering: I've staggered the images pretty consistently so that they are about 50/50 for the left and right, unless I miss my guess the only places where the white space issues would be an issue would be in the ship description section or in the spot about half way down in the article where two images are arranged one on top of the other which could be a white space issue. I'll look into it using the computers here at UTEP to see if there are any other white spacing issues that need to be addressed.
      • FUR is good, but there are still images crowding text and each other in some spots. Adjust your resolution and see for yourself. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Ugh, that quote box in the background section was being pushed by the infobox and causing whitespace like it's cool. I floated that sucker left, and swapped a couple image alignments that were wtill problematic (I almost wonder if you're not sure what I mean when I say "whitspace", or if you're not checking at different resolutions). Just keep that in mind if you add/change any more images. Also, the quote box needs an author! bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Should be a few minor fixes and I can support. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Only two outstanding issues from me: the template usage ({{sclass}}, {{USS}}, etc.) is still inconsistant, and that quote needs an author. Then I can support. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Don't abbreviate caliber. It's almost always going to be hyphenated because it's a compound adjective. Standardize your gun designations; sometime its 16-inch/50 other times it's 16-inch / 50.
• cite # 66, Friedman, p. 190 has nothing to do with what you're using it for.
  • If I recall correctly the source material is supposed to cover one of two aspects of the citation: A) that there were originally only four Iowa's planned, or B) the ships were subject to conversion proposals. In either case it looks to have been intended as a broad cite, not a specific cite. I can remove since there are multiple cites for the material, I just wanted your input on why it was a bad source for the material.
    • Page 190 covers the reconstruction of the WWI-era BBs! Double-check that this isn't a typo or delete it. And the next time somebody makes a very specific criticism like this, please examine the page in question, don't just think that "I put this in there for a reason". That sort of thing does your credibility no credit.
      • I think I have found the typo that was put in as 190 (I'm kind of thinking I put that citation in, so it's my job to fix it.) Page 390 in Battleships deals with Iowa's and other ships post war, but nothing on Essex. I suggest checking Aircraft Carriers to see what pg. 190 has there.. Buggie111 (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Consolidate the propulsion section into a couple of paragraphs. We don't care what watchstanders were required.
• Redlink the radars as a reminder to get to them eventually. You're also being redundant by telling us their function each time their mentioned. Formerly, not formally. Tell us what kind of radars are in the photo. Add WWII electronics to the infobox.
• Not sure that the Iowas could literally support the various helos as it didn't have a hanger, nor any repair parts, AFAIK. I'm not even sure that it could refuel them, so that whole bit should probably go unless you want to talk about the size of helicopters that could be landed on its helipad. When was the crane and catapults removed?
  • The catapults were removed in the 1950s, when the first of the helicopters used were introduced. By support, I think the authors are trying to infer that the ships could serve as landing and refueling points for the helos they operated. I can look into this point if you wold like it researched further.
    • Please do.
• Link mothball.
• No bullets in infobox.
  • Just out of curiosity, how would separate the data if not by bullets? I like to think that the bullets help keep things organized, but I will remove the bullets if consensus emerges that it would be the best course of action in the game.
    • Breaks work just fine. I find bullets a distraction and think that they're redundant since you've bolded the headings.
• Not fond of combining WWII and 1980s data in the same infobox. I'd prefer to have one as built with a smaller one listing all the other changes.
  • I seem to recall I attempted to do something like this and the result was an infobox that was ridiculously large. I'll take another crack at it though and see what I can do.
• There were reloads for the missiles? Where and how many? Provide a cite, please. Tell the # of missiles in the main body as well as in the infobox. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Not at sea, but the ABLs could be reloaded in port. By port, I've always assumed a friendly port; as to the number of missiles, the max 32: each ABL holds four missiles total, and there were 8 ABLS installed on the Iowas in the 1980s.
    • Everything is reloadable in port and shouldn't be mentioned in the article as it implies at sea from an internal magazine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments It's great to see so much work has gone into getting this important article back towards FA status. I think it needs a bit more work to get back to A class though, and my comments are:

• "They were placed in reserve at the end of the war, but recalled for action during every major U.S. war in the latter half of the 20th century" - no they weren't. Only one of the ships was activated for the Vietnam War and none of them took part in the various campaigns in the former Yugoslavia.
  • If you want to get real technical then its two wars - we never declared war in Korea, it was a war fought in the name of the United Nations, and the Vietnam War was fought without a declaration of War from Congress. Moreover, if you count the Cold War as a war then the number jumps. As to Yugoslavia: According to our source material the US only brokered peace between the two sides without a declaration of war, and it appears that the military muscle for that conflict seems to have come from NATO. I'll concede that the paragraph that you cite here may need some tweaking, and I am open to the idea of rewriting it to more accurately reflect the politics of conflict, but if we do we'll need to reach a consensus on how to go about rewording it.
    • I'm not sure what the relevance of arguing the definition of a 'war' is here. My concern with the wording is that it's over-stating things as not all of the ships took part in the Vietnam War and none of them were involved in the war in Yugoslavia (in which the US provided most of the air assets during the NATO-led air campaign). I'd suggest tweaking this to something like 'They were placed in reserve at the end of the war, but ships of the class were reactivated during every major U.S. war until the early 1990s' Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I've taken a stab at rewording, let me know what you think. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• The background section is too long and filled with superfluous detail about the various naval disarmament conferences - this belongs in the articles on these conferences (or a central article on all of them if this exists), and only material which is directly relevant to this class of battleships belongs in the article. I'd suggest significantly trimming the background section, or spinning it out into a separate article.
  • I've reluctantly removed about 50% of the information in the section. I hate it when I have to do this, but if its what you guys want then so be it. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• " Based on hard-learned lessons in the Pacific theater concerns were also raised" - when were these concerns raised?
  • I think that the authors are referring to the inability of the allied ships to fend off or withstand air assaults from the IJN. Take the case of HMS Prince of Whales, and the disposition of US ships lacking the ability to counter IJN air assaults do to insufficient AA. Its a fact that during World War II battleships adhering to the dreadnought philosophy of all big guns abruptly started packing mixed gun batteries again due in large part to the evolution of the attack planes and dive bombers. In addition, the armor carried by shipping was largely intended to withstand assaults from other ships, not from planes, and we have established that the Iowa class battleships had sacrificed a little armor in order to A) get through the panama canal, and B) to maintain a speed advantage. I could expand this if you like to better cover the point being raised, though that would add to the size of an already large article.
    • I was more interested in the date these concerns were raised given that this information is presented in the context of the ships' construction. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Approximately 1942/1943, when the IJN air arm was at its best. I'd have to check the source, but at the moment I'm out of town so that will not be possible. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Is there a reason why the material on the ships' main guns is written in the present tense?
• "the Japanese Kamikaze attacks used during the latter half of World War II" - the Kamikaze attacks began in October 1944, which was well past the halfway point of the Pacific War, much less World War II
  • Exactly. The latter half of World War II, meaning anything after the midway point. If we count the intro of the states as 1941 and the end of the war as 1945, then the middle of the war would be 1943, so the latter half to my reckoning would be anything after 1943.
• The generic paragraph on the Oerlikon 20 mm anti-aircraft gun seems out of place and, in this context, is confusing. This should be removed.
• "When the Iowa-class battleships were launched in 1943 and 1944 they carried twenty quad Bofors 40 mm anti-aircraft gun mounts" - the section on the ships' careers states that they were launched between 1942 and 1944, and this implies that they were fitted with their AA armament before being launched, which seems unlikely
  • Noted and addressed.
• "By the time of the Korean War, helicopters had replaced floatplanes; At the time of the Korean War" - one too many 'time of the Korean War' here!
• Did 'Naval Institute Proceedings' publish an editorial calling for the ships to be converted to paragraphs (on behalf of the magazine and/or the USNI), or publish an article by a writer calling for this?
• Did Arleigh Burke-class destroyers really serve along side Iowa class BBs? According to the article on the destroyers, only Arleigh Burke had a period of service which crossed over that of any of the Iowas, and this was only for a few months (when the destroyer was probably involved in trials and training and the battleships preparing to be decommissioned)
• Was there any criticism of the decision to reactivate and modernise these ships in the 1980s? (this seems likely to have occurred given its expense and their questionable combat value)
  • There was some controversy over the decision to reactivate the battleships. I am going from memory here, so this may not be 100% accurate, but I seem to recall that the controversy was situated over the age of the ships, their ability to withstand the impact of modern anti shipping missiles, the cost of the reactivation, and the intended role of the battleships. I recall that replies were that the ships were old but still considered combat worthy, that the class B armor plate should withstand any soviet missile (and it was alleged that the the armor would hold up against soviet torpedoes as well) packing a conventional warhead, that the cost of reactivating and modernizing the ships was small considering the cost of programs like the B2 then under development, and that the ships would be operating in low air threat environments that would allow the ships to function without the presence of air cover or conversely, given the ability of the ships to operate with carriers at a comparable speed, to cruise with carrier battle groups to provide additional support for the CBG. If you like, I can go fishing form the material and see about building a paragraph or two on the subject for the article.
• The coverage of the ships' World War II service is troublesome; a key feature of their time in the Pacific during 1944 and 1945 was that they all operated as part of Task Force 38/58, and so participated in the same operations, yet these aren't always identified (for instance, three of the BBs took part in Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II during July and August 1945, but only Missouri and Wisconsin are identified as having done this).
  • I assume your talking about the individual ships part of the article. I'll confess that these descriptions are holdovers from the previous version of the article, and that they are intended only to highlight major events of the history of the ships. Still though, I'd be willing to look through and amend the material as necessary.
• The 'ships' section also suffers a bit from DANFS-syndrome. For instance, the key feature of the Iowa class battleships' experience in the Battle of Leyte Gulf was that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time as they were used to screen the carriers instead of guarding the San Bernardino Strait, and when Halsey belatedly detached them they were unable to get in place in time to block the Japanese retreat, but this isn't mentioned.
  • Note that the ships section is intended just to highlite the major events of the history, so the section does emit certain details of their operational history.
    • This is a wise approach, and I would continue to keep the summaries as brief as they are currently. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• The paragraph which begins 'Initially, proposals were made to complete these two battleships as aircraft carrier' duplicates earlier material and could be cut.
• There's nothing at all on the conditions the ships' crews experienced (or even the make-up of the crew and how this changed over time, etc). It would be interesting to know how the US trained sailors in the 1980s to operate these elderly vessels and how successful this was.
  • It happens that we had a presentation by the USN here on campus a week or so ago, and I asked a female lieutenant where I could go and get this kind of information and she suggested a few places to check. In the mean time though this information remains elusive.
• The article still doesn't have any photos of the ships during World War II
  • Technical point: the ships make up in WWII and Korea is 99% similar, so the Korean War images do capture the ships in their WWII format. I've been working on WWII images that will fit in the article and not be so small that they omit all the important details but thus far haven't had much help.
• I've marked some material as needing citations Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Duly noted.

As a few more comments:

• There are two tags at the end of the Bibliography saying that the article contains text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships - this should be re-written if it's still in the article
  • To be brutally honest, if there is any material from DANFS still in the article, its going to be in the section covering the service histories of the ships. I'll look through the section and see about removing the DANFS material from the article, but as a comical side note since DANFS covers the ship's histories any attempt to rewrite the ship's histories is going to be covered to some greater or lesser extent by DANFS :)
• Some of the books in the 'Further reading' section appear to be of limited relevance (eg, The Navy, whatever the Comment and Discussion article in Proceedings is, Unmanned Aviation: A Brief History of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,
  • I consulted the books there and they were of very limited help in the rebuilding of the article. Other sources covered in better detail the info I got from the books, but since conventional wisdom is to list all sources used in the article I thought it best to include them.
• What makes http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm worth including as an external link? It's just someone's personal assessment of World War II battleships
  • There have been two separate and rather long edit wars concerning this article and the inclusion or exclusion of comparison related material to place the capabilities of the Iowa class battleships in relation to the Yamato, Bismark, and other battleship classes of the day. Part of the solution involved in ending the edit wars was the inclusion of this off site link so that others could read on somebody else's page the way the battleships stacked up against each other. Its a holder over from years gone by, and at this point it could probably be removed without inciting a riot, but I thought it important to give the history behind the link. I'll get to this later today, assuming nothing unexpected comes up. I have some answers to other questions you've raised here as well, but as before this I will get to this evening. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
• Note 1 is irrelevant and should be removed
  • Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Note 5 seems speculative. The BBs could have not fired all their cruise missiles because it was difficult (impossible?) to reload them at sea and there was a desire to keep some missiles in reserve onboard these ships. More to the point, it's also of relatively little importance to the article and should probably be removed.
  • Impossible to reload. I added this only to note that the battleships did have unfired missiles and to that it was theoretically possible that one reason they were not fired is due to the warheads being nuclear. That said, it does seem speculative, but by WP:V criteria the note seems to be legit. I'll wait for additional input before I move to address this issue so I can better gauge where consensus on the matter lies.
    • I've removed it. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• The CPI inflation conversion should be removed from note 8 Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Hatnote. Maybe there ought to be a hatnote, because there was a previous Iowa class battleship. This was the USS Iowa, which was in a class of one. I do not think that there is no need for disambiguation in the title though.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments Just a scan of the article turns up some questions:

• I've long been of the opinion that articles trying to achieve A and FA class should not contain text copied from public domain sources. Article claims to contain text from DANFS and the NVR.
  • I am reluctant to remove the NVR material since it serves a purpose in the article. By chance would you be in position to suggest an acceptable substitute for the NVR cites in the article?
    • For NVR citations I've been using the simple {{cite web}} when needed. There isn't a whole lot of material in an NVR listing that can be copied verbatim since the data is only specifications. Brad (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• I don't understand why the History of United States Naval Operations in World War II is never used as a source on battleship articles. You'd think that a 15 volume series would contain much detail of WWII operations.
  • It wasn't a book I had access to here at UTEP. I could see about including the material in the article.
    • It would be nice if you'd stop playing this game. I don't know if this link will work correctly but apparently there are two of the 15 volume series plus a few extra volumes available at UTEP. I found them in about two minutes of searching. Brad (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Brad, that's rather rude of you to say. An editor of your caliber shouldn't need to be reminded of AGF. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
        • If you want a source in the the article then I will go looking for material from your source to add to the article, but this time do me the favor of listing every source you want in the article so that after this fails I can go looking and add all the sources you want to see in the article. I'd say that sounds fair to both of us, don't you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
          • I'd consider ''History of United States Naval Operations in World War II about the worst possible source to use in any article. It was published between 1947 and 1962, at a time when the US and UK kept quite a bit of information classified. Recent publications are almost always better than older ones, and this case is certainly no exception. I for one would oppose the promotion of an article that relied heavily on horribly out-of-date sources like this. Parsecboy (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
            • You'd be surprised at how many "modern" books rely on "outdated" information were that information still applies. Toll in Six Frigates relies heavily on Roosevelt and Cooper. Even Ty Martin in A Most Fortunate Ship uses sources that are over 100 years old. A "modern" book will usually contain updated information where it applies. That's what happens when you take a few minutes to read your source's bibliography. If Tom had simply said he didn't consult the series I would not have cared but I highly dislike being lied to. Brad (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
• Sturmvogel found one reference not backing up what it is citing. This was a severe problem in the past and apparently it still continues. I would hope that an editor could compare the source with the cites and make sure everything is correct.
  • There shouldn't be any issues with the citations, I've been through the source material and it should be all plugged in and correctly cited. I think the instance Sturmvogel cited is a case of differing opinions for the idea of a citation than it is an incorrect cite, though I need to play the waiting game and see if that is in fact the case.
    • I still believe that an uninvolved editor should check these. Brad (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Since Buggie found another (Polish) source that was wrong could there be others? Brad (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
• Currently citation [5] is some sort of a Polish source but it's difficult for anyone to verify the source unless they understand Polish and happen to have a copy at hand. The source isn't online so it could be verified easily. Brad (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • ...yeah, that was here when I started rewriting and its apparently reliable. All the same, I have been looking into replacing it or at the very least ensuring that all information cited to the source is double cited to another source. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

My advice is that the Polish source should be supplemented not replaced.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would an article about a capital ship of the US Navy written in English need to source its information from one written in Polish? Are there no other English sources that can cite the information? Brad (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(I need to go to a confession). I added that ref in good faith when I sort of spontaneously started to help Tom with the FAR. I also forgot to put in a page number. I've removed the refs. Buggie111 (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Confess nothing, Buggie! There is absolutely nothing wrong with Polish, be it a name or a source. As a man whose name ends in "szki", my ethnicity is often confused with my ancestor's neighbors to the west. Like Toddy said, it doesn't neev to be removed entirely if you can verify it (it seems rather cynical to suggest that only English sources are worth offering as references). Alas, I can only speak a bit of Russian, and only curse words in Polish. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If I had the time, I'd be able to hack through the Polish ref, using my knowledge of Russian (Polish being slightly altered romanized Russian, at least some of the time), but, from a first glance I took, none of the refs were actually in the source. Buggie111 (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NONENG Brad (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comments: just a few stylistic comments from me (I made a couple of tweaks to the article also, please check my work):
  • in the lead, there is a little repetition here: "Three of the four battleships currently function as museum ships, while the fourth is awaiting donation to become a museum ship." (the second "museum ship" might be redundant);
    • I played with that a little to see if I could alternated phrases, let me know what you think about the changes. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • World War II and Second World War - both terms are used in the article, it should probably be consistent;
    • I've actually had trouble with this on Wikipedia. When I was in middle and high school, I was taught that the repeated use of the same phrase was a bad thing in a research paper, and the the term should be alternated with other synonyms relevant to the material being present in order to hold an audience without boring them with the repeated use of one phrase. That particular part of my education is what is speaking to me here, and it tells me that it would be better to the reader for the phrases World War II and Second World War trade off with each other so as to avoid the article becoming overly saturated with one particular version of the war. Speaking just for myself, I've always preferred that similar terms be moved in and out written works so as to avoid over reliance on one particular phrase. I know the reason for the suggestion is uniformity in the article, but I personally think that using only one term would only hurt the article in the long run. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Hi, Tom, I understand your point about varying the language, however, I don't believe that this applies to using interchangable proper nouns for events. Doing this could create confusion among lay readers who might be led to believe that it refers to two different conflicts. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I have to agree with AR here. While I take Tom's point about varying language to me this argument is incorrectly applied here. Proper nouns, such as Second World War/World War II, really do need to be used consistently in an article. This has arisen in a number of ACRs and FACs that I have read. IMO a failure to use this language consistently is only likely to cause problems at a later date. Anotherclown (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • in the Conversion proposals section, the last part of the first paragraph probably should have a citation;
    • I'll cite the material, but to be fair to the statement everything mentioned in the last two lines of the paragraph is explored in much greater detail in the body of the section in question. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • there are a couple (three, I think) "citation needed" tags that should be dealt with;
  • in the References, Willmott is listed but doesn't apppear in the Bibliography;
  • in the References, the web ref at # 96 probably needs publisher and accessdate information;
  • in the References and in the Bibliograph there is a slight inconsistency in the presentation of retrieval dates. For example compare # 94 to # 95: "Retrieved 10 January 2011." and "Retrieved 2011-01-12." (there are a number of examples of this);
  • slight inconsistency in style "Miller and Miller" v. "Noris & Arkin" ("and" v. "&") probably should be consistent for FAC;
  • in the References "Noris" but in the Bibliography "Norris" - inconsistent spelling, please adjust;
  • the Bibliography and the Further reading section fonts are different sizes, which looks a bit strange, perhaps it should also use the Refbegin and Refend templates?
  • in the Bibliography, are there ISBNs or OCLC numbers for the Camp and the Gardiner works?
  • in the Bibliography, "Muir, Malcom (1989)" - is this the correct spelling? Should it be "Malcolm"? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Hi, is anyone able to address these comments? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm working on them, I'm just taking things very, very slowly. Believe me when I say that I will get to it, but it may take a while before your comments are properly addressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
        • No worries, that's fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Hi, this ACR has been open for 28 days now and as such will need to be listed for closing shortly. Tom, do you think that you will be able to address these concerns within the next few days, or do you think it best to list it for closing now? I'm happy to wait a few days if a successful outcome is deemed likely. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I should be able to address some of these concerns in the next 24 hours or so, but I doubt that I will get to all of them before the end of the review. Incidentally, please accept my apologies for the absence over the last two weeks; I had to drop everything and focus on a dream and goal of mine in order to see it come to fruition. You can learn more on userpage, if you like. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Tom left a note on my talk page that he'd like to have an "open nominations list" at FAC, so I'd like to encourage anyone who wants to join in to get started now and help us finish up this ACR. If we don't get enough help to finish it up, I'll jump in. - Dank (push to talk) 11:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Frankly, I'm not seeing a whole lot of progress and a lot of reason to close this now so it can be brought up again once all of the relevant issues have been worked on.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Then you have my blessing to close this so that it can be reopened when the above issues have been addressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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.

---

• Not promoted - no consensus for promotion after being open for 28 days. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Mississippi class battleship

Nominator(s):Kevin Murraytalk

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it is close to A class and I am eventually hoping it will reach Featured Article class. Any suggestion for improvement welcome. Kevin Murray (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments This article is in good shape, but I think that it needs a bit more work to reach A class
  • The coverage of the ships' careers with the Greek Navy seems inadequate given that Greece ended up operating both ships for most of their service lives. The article's initial sentence that "The Mississippi class battleships, USS Mississippi and USS Idaho, served in the United States Navy from 1908 to 1914." without any acknowledgement of their Greek service needs to be fixed as a priority.
    • I've rewritten the lead to more prominently discuss the Greek period and removed some other detail.--Kevin Murray (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I've added some interesting background material to put the specific facts on the ships into a historical context. One of the sources that I was reading today discusses the lack of information about the early 20th century Greek Navy; explaining that during the WWII German occupation much information was destroyed. There is more information at the individual articles for the ships, but these are weak in WP:V. There are several potentially strong resources with limited online viewing. It looks like these might yield some more good detail to round out the sections (unfortunately these are pricey to buy). I also have a reprint of an early 20th century Janes FS on order which might have some further details. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The paragraph which begins with 'Secondary batteries were considered "torpedo defense;"' needs a reference Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree and will have worked on this. I've rephrased my statement as what I had originally written was pretinent to dreadnoughts, and the later use of predreadnoughts, rather than the designers' expectations for the predreadnoughts. I expanded the description in the text, then try to clarify in a note including the references. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)--Kevin Murray (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
      • This para and a few other statements still need citations - I've tagged them in the article to help with adding cites. Nick-D (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
        • OK, thanks! Clearly needed citations. Got those fixed. --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
      • As an extra comment, I've noticed that DANFS is being heavily used as sources on the ships' careers. While I'm comfortable with this for A class articles when it's clear that other sources have also been consulted (as is the case here), I believe that DANFS generally isn't considered a suitable source for FA level articles. Nick-D (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the heads-up I thnk I can remedy much of that. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
        • This might be harder than I thought, but I can probably get rid of half of the references to DANF. There are only two articles on classes of US battleships that have reached FA. Each references DANF, but to a much lesser extent. --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support My above comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with dab links or external links. Most of your images lack alt text though, and it would be nice to see that added before moving to up to FAC.
    • I've added alt text to all images, per your advice. I've not done this before, so please let me know whether my attemps meet the expected standards. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • According to the dashboard tool, both you and Jim Sweeney have been the largest contributors to the article, but I do not Jim's name in the nomination statement. Has he been informed of the ACR?
    • Tom, look at the history of this review, Jim started it at Kevin's request but did not list himself as a co-nom. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the opening paragraph of the article reads awkwardly, can this be fixed?
    • Removed and rewritten into the first paragraph.--Kevin Murray (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • This whole article could really benefit from a copyedit; you've got commas all over the place, most of which could/should be removed to help improve article flow, and many of the words choose for the sentence structure seem awkwardly placed which in turn reduce the ease of reading since. In at least one instance I found that a ship class name wasn't italicized, so that should be looked at too.
    • Agreed that I sometimes get commaitis. Might need some fresh eyes to perform the surgery.--Kevin Murray (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I belive that I've now got all ships' names italicized.--Kevin Murray (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I have gone ahead and copy edited the article. Hopefully the commas are in the right places now. Regards, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph of the secondary battery section has the following line: "There were various opinions on the best combination of guns: all 8-inch (200 mm), all 7-inch (180 mm), or a mix of 8-inch (200 mm) and 8-inch (200 mm)." Somehow, I doubt very much that the ship would have a mix of 8in and 8in guns, perhaps 8in and a different caliber was considered instead?
    • Fixed.
  • You've got a lot of small section headers that in all honesty could probably merged to form larger headers to better cover the information present. Just something to consider, but I would encourage that this be done on at least some level since the people at FAC have in the past frowned on such small sections if they feel the sections serve no purpose.
    • Are you talking about the subsections in the armament section? I do feel that they serve a purpose as a mile stone for the reader as the discussion can get a bit tedious in the detail of the various weapons, especially for the novice reader. But if they need to go in order to conform to FA standards, I understand. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Try and lose the see also section by working the links into the main body of the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll play with this. It will probably require a section discussing predreadnoughts, but that could be interesting. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't see evidence of "see also" secrtions at other featured articles. I think that trying to work-in another section is overkill, but don't see places where I can just drop these in to the text in a WP:V manner. Removed for now, until we have a better solution. --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Above all thank you so much for taking the time to help me here and leave this excellent advice. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• formatting issues I did a few examples yesterday but didn't leave a message. hyphens in number ranges need to be replaced with ndashes, identical refs need to be merged with tags, amd no spaces between dashes in teh numbers YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think these ndashes were changed to a hyphen using a script.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: in the Bibliography, some of the works are formatted differently (for example the work by Gardiner and Lambert). This is because some use the template and others don't. I'd suggest adding the template to all of the books to ensure that they display consistently. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe that I've got the format consistent now among the works listed in the bibliography. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, should be fine now. However, before taking to FAC I strongly recommend adding the template to all the works. Currently only some of them have it, while others don't. As a result some of the ISBNs appear linked and others don't. Additionally, some of the ISBNs have hyphens and others don't. These should be made consistent. It's only a minor consistency issue, though, so shouldn't really hold the article back from A class, but might be an issue at FAC. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comments - if you need a see also section, by all means include one.
  • A lot of the images need links back to the source page – I think http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/bb23.htm contains all of the NH&HC ones.
  • All done with links to the source or original image at commons for those that I modified
    • WP:MOS#IMAGES advises against image sandwiches, like the one in the machinery section.
    • I've wrestled with this. I agree that it is not ideal, but I'd like to be bold here and stick with the two images for now as I see value in both. I have reduced the vertical size of these set them both to the right to eliminate the sandwich. Should be better now, depending on the viewer settings. I hope this solves the problem. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Friedman's U.S. Battleships was written in 1985, not '89...
    • Fixed --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd advise pinging User:WereSpielChequers and asking him to use his typo script (I think he uses one of those cool scripts... if he doesn't, he'll be able to point you at someone who does!)
    • Done - requested that he join our efforts. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Pinged. Duly read through and made a few tweaks. I think the alt texts could do with rethinking, remember with alt text someone already has your caption but can't actually see your picture - either they are blind or accessing the article by mobile phone. So no need to repeat anything in the caption, and no point trying to explain every detail in the picture. But ideally one uses a dozen words to give a hint of what thousand words the image conveys. I've had a bash at one, hope that helps. Also I think the lead overemphasis the history of the design, and underplays the story of the two ships of that class. Later there is a section where each ship gets a near identical paragraph, unless I'm missing some differences it might flow better as "both ships had shakedown cruises off Guantanamo..... differing only in that....." The Greco Turkish war could do with some rephrasing, my memory is that the Greeks tried to take a large area of Ionia with many Greek communities, and the war ended with a large mutual ethnic cleansing. But significantly from our point of view the Greeks lost the foothold they tried to capture in Asia, whilst keeping the islands - I.E. the army was defeated but not the navy. There is also a dissonance between the lead and the Fate sections. One refers to decommissioning the other to reserve and auxiliary roles. ϢereSpielChequers 23:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Alt text: expanded to be more explanatory of the visuals and redundancies removed.--Kevin Murray (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Lead overplays the design: Moved some discussion to a new section and rounded out the lead.--Kevin Murray (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Combining sections on the ships: I'm not sure what the best course is here. Though these ships took similar paths in the U.S. Navy, because they were similarly disimilar to the rest of the new ships, they weren't absolutely tied at the hip. The problem with these "career" sections is that they are frequently disjointed facts formed into manageble paragraphs by sequence only. At WP, we can't really draw conclusions or offer opinions not offered in the source materials, and on most of these old ships the information is often uneven and limited. I'm concerned that combining these sections will make the flow more uneven and confusinig. My goal was to follow the guide of the FA article at Indiana class battleship, getting two excellent articles at either end of the U.S. predreadnought series, then fill-in over time using a consistent pattern. My thought is to keep these separate, but transfer detail to the articles for the individual ships, but keep the separate sections as consistent with the Indiana class article. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Greko Turkish War rephrase and clarify: Resolved. --Kevin Murray (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Dissonance between Lead and Fate sections: I have clarified the nuance in the Fate section. --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Thanks, I've struck the resolved bits and done a slight rephrase re the war. It is still very contentious as to whether particular areas were majority Turkish or Greek before these events, but describing the area as mixed should be acceptable to both sides and more than adequate for the purposes of this article. ϢereSpielChequers 11:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
            • Thank you. All looks very good and clarifies the Turkish/Greek issue nicely.--Kevin Murray (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
              • As regards the repetitive bits, I'd suggest breaking them out into separate articles for the two ships and using the {{Main}} template. ϢereSpielChequers 18:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Did you know you can put citations in the notes? See [1] for how. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Done - thanks!--Kevin Murray (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions and comments

• FWIW, I'd prefer a hyphen in the title and therefore also in the first sentence (Mississippi-class battleships), but I don't have the attention span necessary for another argument over TITLEs so I won't push it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • No objection from me on this. Ihave no opinion here. However, I think that we should have all the articles on the US ships consistent. All BB articles back to the FA Indiana class battleship omit the hyphen. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• The lead is too short for FAC for an article of this length. I probably would have asked for a longer lead at GAN, too. - Dank (push to talk) 15:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I've increased the lead to discuss more issues. Perhaps we could go further, but there really isn't that much that can be said without further explanation so we end up with a short article prefacing a long article. Many leads for ship articles summarize what the ships did, but these did very little. The story is in the failure of the ships and the process leading to their design. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Not a fan of "albeit" (in Wikipedia) myself, because I prefer words that 90% of our readers will know, but I can't find any objections in style guides so I'll leave it alone. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed, substituted "but".--Kevin Murray (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Anyone have an opinion on "a Connecticut" to mean one of the Connecticut-class ships? I don't remember seeing this in the books in my library. - Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Done! --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• I don't want to be too fussy about headings, people spend too much time on Wikipedia arguing over titles and labels, but "Last U.S. Navy pre-dreadnought" doesn't feel right to me. We don't usually attempt to make a "point" in the heading, only to set context ... for instance, "Comparison with other classes". - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Changed to "Pre-dreadnought." I took this out of the lead in the process, since the lead was overly focused on this issue. These ships have little claim to fame or significance, and this is among the few. When I first began cleaning up this and the articles around it, there was a mess regarding last-dreadnought status and confusion within and among the articles. Personnally I think that the Dreadnought definition is over emphasized as a benchmark, but ??? --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per usual disclaimer. I don't disagree with the many positive things said above, and I'm sure we can massage this into an A-class article in time. Here's a list of some of the remaining problems. Other good sources of information on what we're looking for are in previous A-class reviews and edit summaries.

• "This was the last pre-dreadnought": "This" is too far away from what it's modifying. "The Mississippi-class battleships were ..." - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• "for reasons of economy and compromise, the ships were considered inferior ...": Each word should play a role in answering a likely question (even if the answer is incomplete or imperfect) rather than raising an unanswered question. What "compromise"? It's not cost, because you just said "economy". - Dank (push to talk)
  • Hmm? This is a tricky one. The compromise was broader than economy, but too complicated to explain in that sentence. it is explained in the following sentence. I'm not really excited about the Pre-Dreadnought paragraph yet, though I think it is important. The reamaining issuse in your list have to do with that paragraph. Please see discussion on Pre-dreadnought section below. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Connecticut class design": needs a hyphen. - Dank (push to talk)
  • See section above. This is consistent with the series of US BBs. We should discuss this at a braoder venue. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• "those preferring more but less expensive battleships": unclear. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Please see discussion on Pre-dreadnought section below. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• "However, the next design, the South Carolina class, was a completely different approach ...": Neither "however" nor "but" would work here, because there's no contradiction or tension involved: the next class is better, and that's to be expected. (Copyeditors: see Chicago, 5.220, at "but".) - Dank (push to talk)
  • Please see discussion on Pre-dreadnought section below. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• "all big gun format": all-big-gun format. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed.--Kevin Murray (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• "These would be similar ...": the last noun that "these" can refer to is the South Carolina class, which is not what you mean. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• "These would be similar in concept to the HMS Dreadnought, and in some ways superior.": This isn't a sentence you can support in this article, because it would be too much of a digression to compare the following class with a British class. - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, better off removing the sentence. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dank This article has made some improvements, but I think there is still a lot of room for improvement. I appreciate that most of the issues I raised have been addressed, but I am not yet convinced that this should be promoted. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

'Discussion of pre-dreadnought section' Dank has made some very good points, all of which have been addressed, except several having to do with one pivitol paragraph, which was added after the article reache GA status, much of which was taken out of the lead, which seemed to be bogged in detail. Dank's comments are restated here for clarity: --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• "for reasons of economy and compromise, the ships were considered inferior ...": Each word should play a role in answering a likely question (even if the answer is incomplete or imperfect) rather than raising an unanswered question. What "compromise"? It's not cost, because you just said "economy". - Dank (push to talk)
  • I'm meaning for this sentence to be a summary lead for the section, with the later discussion to provide the answer. I think that I disagree with you, but am open to being convinced of my error.
• "those preferring more but less expensive battleships": unclear. - Dank (push to talk)
  • This is a clumsy concept, you woud expect one side to say we want fewer but better and the other to say we want more but less cost per ship. But the proponents of the higher tech ships would have preferred more ships, but each to be the best possible. It was not a zero-sum-solution.
• "However, the next design, the South Carolina class, was a completely different approach ...": Neither "however" nor "but" would work here, because there's no contradiction or tension involved: the next class is better, and that's to be expected. (Copyeditors: see Chicago, 5.220, at "but".) - Dank (push to talk)
  • There is contradiction and there was tension. I'm just not getting the point across. The Missippi class was a departure from the progression, an intentional step backwards for economy and strategy (third rater concept as advocated by Mahan and Dewey), but ironically the next class was a radical new approach abondoning both economy and the third-rater strategy.

• To be clear, I'm still opposing; those were comments about the first two paragraphs after the lead. There's more to do here than I have time to do. You can ask at WP:GOCE or WT:SHIPS for copyediting help. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 05:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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.

---

• Not promoted - no consensus for promotion after being open for 28 days -MBK₀₀₄ 07:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Alton

Nominator(s): Rmrfstar (talk)

This is my first military history article, and I'd like to bring it to FA status. I just archived a Wikiproject:Military History Peer Review. It's up for WP:GAN simultaneously. It's now a Good Article. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • no dab links, ext links all work, images have alt text (no action required);
  • images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • in the Background section "major-general William Waller" should be "Major General William Waller" (the rank in this case is part of a title);
    • Fixed.
  • the red wikilink for "Colonel Bennett" is not necessary as the link is too generic. If you know Bennett's first name, then an appropriate red link would be "Firstname Bennett", if not I'd suggest just removing it;
    • Fixed.
  • where you have the word "Boles's", I think that grammatically it should be "Boles'";
    • Both are acceptable to the MOS, and I prefer the former with proper nouns.
      • Okay, that's fine. Can you make them all consistent then, please? In the lead, for example there is Boles' and then later Boles's. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Fixed.
  • in the Background section, I think "the first of December" should simply be "1 December" per WP:MOSDATE;
    • Fixed.
  • in the Battle section "Sir Waller" - this doesn't sound correct to my ears (I might be wrong though). Is it traditional to use this title, or wouldn't it be "Sir William Waller" (I've heard of people with titles being addressed as Sir Firstname, but not Sir Surname);
    • Fixed.
      • Can you please check this again? I don't think it has been fixed. The issue is with this sentence in the Battle section: "Sir Waller mustered his men..." and then again in the Aftermath section: "During and after the battle, at least 500 men were captured by Sir Waller...";
        • Sorry, I think I fixed a second incidence of that problem. I got them all now.
  • the images are quite large, is there a need to force their sizes, or could they not simply use the "thumb" size parameter (which would allow individual brower's to choose their own sizes)? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Not fond of simultaneously submitting for both GA and A-class. Means that we have to do things here that should have been caught by the GA reviewer. I'm all about minimizing my workload.

That's not an issue of simultaneity. If you think A-Class review shouldn't waste time with articles that don't already meet the GA-criteria, it should be required that noms already be GAs. Otherwise, (as far as I can imagine) it's simply my responsibility to keep up with the criticisms, in order to make sure two reviewers don't make the same comments.

• Some prose tags that need to be addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed each of those sentences to make them more readable. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have to support Sturmvogel this should not be up for GA and A class reviews at the same time. I was going to start the GA review but could not see the point as its up for A class. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense to me. Why?.. Also, if that's the consensus on the WikiProject, it should be mentioned in the nomination guidelines. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, and I don't know if things have changed within the past year, but the MILHIST a-class review has effectively neutralized the GA review as a worthwhile endeavor. Indeed, the only purpose a GA-review may have is to have your article listed by Wikipedia in general, rather than just the project (since Wikipedia does not necessarily recognize project-awarded a-class assessment). Furthermore, the GA review has always been less rigorous (oftentimes gifted, to say the least), and so ultimately the two overlap in the sense that one would have to deal with any issues problematic in a GA review. JonCatalán^(Talk) 01:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If the article was added to a Featured/Good topic the MILHIST A class is not recognised. So it does need the GA if not the FA grading. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think having the site-wide designation is a worthwhile endeavour, e.g. for Featured/Good topic. Overlap in the reviewer criteria isn't the question; simultaneous nomination is. And I don't see the problem *that* poses. Still, I'd like to ask on the GA talk page if possibly MILHIST A-Class articles could automatically be counted as GAs. I would imagine that the WikiProject's review process is well-enough respected for that. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: For what it's worth, see my comments on my review of the GA nomination. I don't believe this article is ready for either GA or A-class, but it is nearly 1AM and I may be a bit tired. Perhaps other reviewers can weigh in. JonCatalán^(Talk) 07:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've responded there. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I was invited to review this article.
  • Bibliography: Publishers need locations. Book dates normally aren't given as month-day, is this important here? Maclachlan, Tony (1999-10-01). extraneous "r" at end of line.

Now all of the sources have locations. Would you prefer day-month? It's not important, no, but it's not bad to include, I think, if I have the information on hand. The "r" was removed.

• • Depth of research: You're using fairly generic survey works, rather than battle specific works. Why are you reliant on 19th century works? Reconsider.

I don't know of any books on this battle itself, a rather minor event. Three of the sources are not on the Civil Wars in general, but actually specific geographical regions of it. Do you have any other sources to recommend?

I don't think I'm reliant on 19th century works; only 2/9 of the sources are from that period. Many of the inline citations refer to Curtis, but only out of convenience, and all of the newer works agree.

• • Citation of Primary Sources found in 19th century works. You're using these as illustrations, equivalent to "pictures". What makes these illustrative of the rest of the text, or do they bear weight as evidence in themselves? The second would be OR. Citations aren't complete, they should be cited as individual letters in and of themselves. From, To, Date. In Containing Work. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I only see one primary source, and that's the quote box on the right. Indeed, this is a quote and an illustration of the text. Perhaps in referring to an incomplete citation you were looking at the first quote, from Godwin. This quote also includes a primary source document, and is primarily illustrative. I've changed the format up a bit to make the sourcing clearer. Thanks for the prompt criticism. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I am talking about Lieutenant Elias Archer [unknown remembrance] in Godwin Civil War in Hampshire 1882; [Anonymous] [untitled] Weekly Account 20 December 1643 as quoted in Curtis (1896), pg. 47; "Ricardus Boles, Wiltoniensis in Art. Mag. Composuit Posuitque Dolens. An. Domi 1679." [epitath] [undisclosed location] quoted in Curtis (1896), pg. 48; Earl of Crawford to Sir W. Waller [letter] [undated] as quoted in Curtis (1896), pg. 49; and, Ralf Hopton to Sir W. Waller from Winton, 16 December [1643] as quoted in Curtis (1896), pg. 49. Are you sure Curtis _isn't_ a sourcebook? I'd suggest you fix this as these are opposeable under A1. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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.

---

• Not promoted - no consensus for promotion after being open for 28 days -MBK₀₀₄ 06:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Arado Ar E.381

Nominator(s): WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro}

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has gone to GA, and I feel it meets the requirements for A. WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 21:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• GraemeLeggett - not yet ready
  • lacking in areas - while three different prototypes are mentioned it is not clear if these are the only 3 or how many aircraft were built in total - the photo rationale mentions 4. Also there is no information on the testing of these aircraft - did they fly or where they just carried aloft. What happened to the prototypes? If these things are not known then they ought to be addressed in the article lest it appear the article is unfinished rather than the sum of what little is known.
  • specification - which variant the text is for is not given. I'm guessing that it was rockets or gun. "several" for rockets does not explain either type or number carried. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

done WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 18:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Coordinator note - please do not strike other editor's comments. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

• There's a lot of missing information as Graeme said.
• Were test flights made? If so, what were the results? If not, why not? What about drop tests from the Ar 234?

done WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 19:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• The text could use some clean-up. Detail the landing procedures once and say that they apply, I presume, to all variants.

Aren't they already detailed enough? The aircraft gets close to the ground, deploys the chute, and skids to a stop. WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 19:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Clarify that these aircraft had little capability against fighters, and were specifically designed for use against bombers.

Done WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 19:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Break out the bibliography separately from the citations; I found it confusing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • You need to get this book: Dieter Herwig; Heinz Rode, Luftwaffe secret projects, Vol. 3 : ground attack & special purpose aircraft; it's got some good information on the aircraft's development.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• We have an article for Parasite aircraft but that's unreferenced never having heard the term before I think unless its in common usage it should have a cite.

I think it is common usage WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 22:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Germany in the inf box redirects to Federal Republic of Germany

 Done WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 22:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• interception of heavily armed American and British bombers British bombers were not heavily armed and it also suggests that the Arado Ar.E381 had a night fighter role against the RAF

 Done WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 22:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• They probably had only very limited capability against fighters. sounds very POV

don't you agree? this is very probable anyway WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 22:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• twin-fin empennage is linked to Empennage but the section its linked to has the main article template {{main|tailplane}} so is this the right link ?

yeah WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 22:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• In the Specifications (E.381/I) section the reference would be better at the end so its obvious it covers all the data.

The ref is created by the specs template WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 22:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Large parts of the aircraft specifications template are unused and can be removed.

Later data can be added by IPs without exhausting research on templates if kept WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 22:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Also agree with Sturmvogel 66 about the bibliography and the publishers locations could be added.

I don't really know about the publication data. Parsecboy added the sources. WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 22:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

NielsenGW added some of the sources, not I. I have, however, gone ahead and fixed them. For future reference, you can look up published materials at [www.worldcat.org worldcat] and find publishing locations, ISBNs, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe A Class is possible but some work still needed. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—A1 citation presentation quality: Green, William (1971). I suspect the number is part of a book in series, not the title. Similarly with Griehl, Manfred (1998). Did no author with a name M-Z publish on this topic? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure. What does the authors' names matter to the quality of the sources? WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 15:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that I have fixed the issue with Green. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The question regarding authors M-Z is that authors tend to have a variety of last names, spread across all letters, even in fields of very minor study such as a particular parasite aircraft. I'm asking if a full literature survey has been conducted, as only having a limited set of author last name starting letters indicates potential missing sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • there is a mixture of British and US English, for instance "armour" which is British, but also "meters" and "kilometers" (in the Specifications section) which are US;

 Done WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 21:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• • there is an "awkward" tag and a "clarification needed" tag which should be rectified (I think that you can deal with the clarification tag by just saying "of an unspecified type"). The awkward tag can be fixed by rewording. I wasn't sure exactly what was meant so I left it alone, sorry;

 Done WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 21:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The "clarification needed tag" is still in the article (in the Variants subsection). Are you able to fix this one up? I believe that you can fix this by just explaining what type of rockets they were (if unspecified, just say "of an unspecified type"). AustralianRupert (talk) 05:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed this for you. Please check that you agree with what I have done. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• • the final paragraph of the Development section needs a citation. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's unknown and unclear. Do we need a cite for that? WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 21:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, for A class, I believe so. Otherwise is it might seem like original research to say that it is unknown and unclear. The sources that you have used must surely say something that confirms this which you can cite? One way to approach this might be to say something like this: "The sources are unclear about which variants the prototypes were or whether or not they were air tested." (You could then have a footnote after the sentence with a brief commentary of the what the sources actually say, e.g. "Smith 2010, p. 999 briefly discusses the four variants but gives no details about test flights, while Bloggs 2001, p. 111 similarly does not discuss this." Just a suggestion. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 14:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that looks better. I still think it would be best to add a quick footnote, though, which quickly discusses what the sources actually say around the matter, or what sources were consulted which have proven to be unclear. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one who added the current sources. (Say thanks to Parsecboy and NielsenGW for that) so I'm not sure what they say exactly. WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 22:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Given that the review is rather mature now, in order to make sure that the nominator has the best chance of success, could other editors who have commented on the article please take another look and determine whether or not WikiCopter has addressed the concerns raised, or whether more work is required? Also, WikiCopter, have you addressed Fifeloo's comment about the breadth of sources? Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe the current amount of sources is enough, and I have searched Google Books for more information. You may do so again if you wish. WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 22:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments I feel that more could be said about the development here, specifically issues like what brought about this particular philosophy, was this a byproduct of the impending collapse of the 3rd Reich (like a a weapon of last resort, similar the kamikaze units in the IJN) or was it meant for actual useful war service, whose idea was this, who were the people behind the design of the plane, etc, etc. Also, I added a cn tag to the last sentence about the disagreeing sources, while I understand that its just a one liner I still would like to see the information cited, or better yet the one liner reworked into a paragraph on what exactly the sources disagree over. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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.

---

No consensus to promote at this time Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Gamal Abdel Nasser

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk)

Prior nomination here.

Along with a few other editors, I've been working on this article for a few years now and intend to nominate it for FAC soon. However, I would like an A-class review from this wikiproject beforehand to make sure it is ready for FA. The article's been a GA since 2009, but didn't pass it's initial A-class review in 2010. Since then, all the concerns of the previous reviews have been addressed, the article has been substantially expanded with new material and sources, and many parts have been rewritten/reorganized. Although it's still quite large (after all, Nasser was arguably the most monumental Arab political figure of the 20th-century and ruled Egypt for 16-18 years), the article's prose has been trimmed down to around 80 KB. It's second peer review (and a thorough copyedit from WP:Copyeditors) was concluded a few weeks ago and there has been additional followup at the talkpage. I looked over both the A-class and FA criteria, and believe the article now meets them both. --Al Ameer (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a massive article, so might take me a while to get through it all! First pass comments. That said, it doesn't seem overly long for such an important figure.

• Writings; is there nothing else you can say about his writing except list the books? Is there no commentary on his writings, for example?
• Nasser strove to keep his career separate from his family life; "strove" implies a struggle, is there any commentary on the difficulty he had achieving this?
• Personal Life; just checking... there is no extant criticism of his personal life?

Will add more later. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• There is available English-language info on his memoirs and the Philosophy of the Revolution. My only concern is article size, but if you think it's best to add commentary, I'll add a sentence or two for each. If the alternative is removing the section altogether, I don't mind doing that either. I clarified the part about his career/family life to be closer to the source. His personal life is probably the only part of his life where there is no extant criticism, even by his biggest detractors. He certainly didn't take care of his health though and had many ailments (I assume due to genetics and chain smoking). I look forward to the rest of your review. --Al Ameer (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Image check

• File:Nasser_portrait2.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same for File:Gamal_Abdel_Nasser.jpg, File:NasserLawSchool.jpg, File:N-10009.jpg...actually, all works with the PD-Egypt tag - some include it, most don't
• File:Turco-Egyptian_ka'im_makam.gif: source? What is the legal status of this design?
• File:Nasser_cheered_by_supporters_in_1956.jpg: the provided source link gives a copyright notice for a non-CIA source
• File:Egypt,_Syria_Merge_In_New_Arab_Republic.webm: licensing tag is wrong
• File:Presidents_Gamal_Abdul_Nasser_and_Shukri_al-Quwatli_receiving_Yemeni_Crown_Prince_Mohammad_Badr_in_Damascus_in_February_1958_congratulating_them_on_formation_of_the_United_Arab_Republic.jpg: source link is broken
• File:Nasser_and_Sallal_in_Sanaa.jpg also needs initial publication information
• File:President_Nasser's_visit_to_the_Suez_front_with_Egypt's_top_military_commanders_during_the_War_of_Attrition.jpg: why does this have a CC tag?
• File:Nimeiry,_Nasser_and_Gaddafi,_1969.jpg: this was photographed in Libya, not Egypt - check licensing and publication
• File:Presidential_Standard_of_Egypt.svg is sourced to a redlink. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe I've now fixed the issues for all the photos of Nasser and replaced "File:N-10009.jpg" because I was unable to ascertain where it was taken (most likely Egypt, but possibly Sudan). With "File:Nasser_and_Sallal_in_Sanaa.jpg" I wasn't sure what you meant exactly, but I've clarified that the photo was taken in Yemen and adjusted the licensing accordingly. I don't know anything about the Presidential Standard of Egypt file (don't even know if it's a real thing) so I just removed it from the Egyptian Presidents Template. I also know nothing about the "Turco-Egyptian ka'im makam" file. Should I remove it as well? --Al Ameer (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually I missed "File:Nasser_cheered_by_supporters_in_1956.jpg". I removed the photo from the article for now. The photo appears to have been attributed to a source other than the CIA, but it was taken in Egypt. Does it still qualify for PD-Egypt if this is clarified? --Al Ameer (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments -- I'll try and do a full review at some stage. In the meantime, you have a series of Harv errors, which you can check by installing this script. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• All fixed. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead/infobox

• In the infobox, you could reduce the sea of blue by removing duplicate links; I'm also not a fan of little flag and rank icons, though I acknowledge they're not forbidden and some people seem to like the little pictures.
• Generally no need to link modern-day countries, e.g. Britain, France, Israel, Syria, etc. These examples are just from the lead so you could check the rest of the article as well. Linking obsolete political entities such as the Soviet Union is fair enough though.

• Done. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Nationalization of Suez Canal

• the Egyptian people had a right to sovereignty over the waterway, especially since 120,000 Egyptians had died building it -- that figure seems much higher than I've heard elsewhere; does the source report Nasser himself using the figure?

• Nasser himself states that figure. I put in quotes. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Pan-Arabism and socialism

• In January 1957, the US adopted the Eisenhower Doctrine and pledged to prevent the spread of communism and its "agents" in the Middle East. -- not sure what the justification is for scare quotes around "agents"; suggest simply drop the quotes or else use the term "proponents" or some such (without quotes).
• Nasser initiated the Helwan steelworks, which were on their way to becoming Egypt's largest enterprise -- how could he "initiate" (i.e. start) something that was already "on the way"? Suggest either he must have supported/helped it as an existing enterprise, or he initiated and it subsequently became Egypt's largest enterprise.
• In the fall of 1958 -- could we have more specific dating for those not in the same hemisphere as Egypt?
• The new Iraqi and Syrian governments soon sent Nasser delegations to push for a new Arab union on 14 March. -- to clarify, did they send their delegations on 14 March, or did they want a new union to be proclaimed on 14 March?
• He received the Hero of the Soviet Union award the same year. -- I feel this needs some explanation as we've previously highlighted his supposed opposition to communism and establishment of NAN, neither of which (one assumes) would've endeared him to the Soviets.

• Done, ehh almost. I just removed the Hero award since I don't have anything else on it to make it relavant to the rest of the text. Unfortunately, I could not find the exact date to clarify "fall of 1958." Still working on that. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not fanatical about seasonal dates so don't sweat it too much. If you can just alter the Americanism to "autumn" it'll be okay with me (other reviewers may complain when it gets to FAC but I won't)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Modernization efforts and internal dissent

• In 1961, Nasser sought to firmly establish Egypt as the leader of the Arab world and to promote a second revolution in Egypt with the purpose of merging Islamic and socialist thinking to satisfy the will of the general populace. -- I assume what we're trying to say here is that Nasser saw himself as attempting to satisfy the will of the people? I draw the distinction because I'm sure all rulers see themselves as doing so, whether it's truly the case is another matter. For me, it would sound more neutral if we simply dropped "to satisfy the will of the general populace".
• Nasser guided al-Azhar to create changes in its syllabus... -- I don't have access to the source but is "guided" a euphemism for "ordered"? I ask particularly because soon after you say he "forced" the organisation to issue a fatwā.
• Sometime during this year, Nasser suffered and survived a heart attack. -- since we don't seem to have a specific date for this, and you mention it in the Personal life section (along with another such incident), I'd suggest dropping it from here.

• Done. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Six-Day War

• In early 1967, the Soviet Union issued multiple warnings to Nasser of an impending Israeli attack on Syria -- spotchecking Kadil, he describes the Soviet reports as "unconfirmed", and appears to have Nasser's man Fawzy declaring that the reports of Israel mobilising against Syria were "baseless".

• Clarified. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Legacy

• Nasser transitioned Egypt from British-occupation to serving as an influential power in the developing world. -- I have a couple of concerns with this sentence after spotchecking it. Firstly the expression is quite similar to part of a sentence in the source and might be paraphrased better. Secondly as written in the article it suggests that Egypt was occupied by the British when Nasser came to power, which I don't think is quite correct is it? I gather there was British military presence and British influence, but that's not what I understand by the term "occupied". In any case I think the source gives credit to Nasser for making Egypt independent but the transition from British "occupation" seems to be mentioned in passing rather than directly credited to Nasser...
• Egypt experienced a golden age of culture during his presidency -- "golden age" is a bit peacockish, although I've no objections if it's a quote from a source and you can attribute it.

• Clarified the part about the transition from occupation. And attributed "golden age". It was a direct quote. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Personal life

• His social status was still well below the wealthy Egyptian elite, and his resentment of those born into wealth and power continued to grow. -- I think this is the first time we've specifically mentioned his resentment of the elite (I recall us mentioning resentment of the British) and wonder if this should be touched on earlier in the article to help explain his motivations.

• Relocated. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Images/sources

• I'll rely on Nikki's image check and hope she'll be able to complete a source review as well... ;-)
• I notice in the Al-Azhar subsection that you could consolidate references, i.e. in both paragraphs two consecutive sentences have exactly the same citation. There may not be a rule against this but I think the fewer citations one can get away with, the better the text flows.
• Given my few spotchecks of sources suggested some issues, I think the article would benefit from a fuller spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Alternatively you could revisit the article yourself based on the sort of things I've identified so far in that respect.

• It would be preferable if someone else could do the spotchecking other than myself. During Czar's review, I did a general spotcheck, but missed a few sections. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Structure/content

• Structure seems logical and in line with similar bios.
• Content-wise there's a lot of detail but I don't find it overwhelming and, while I don't claim to be an expert on Nasser or Egyptian history, the major facts presented in the article seem in line with the general wisdom as I understand it, and the tone appears mainly neutral except where queried above.
• You have a number of duplicate links that you can check with this script. Some may be justified owing to the length of the article and the resultant space between links, but pls review in any case.

Summary

• I've copyedited as I went through the article, so pls let me know if I've misinterpreted or broken anything. All in all, this is a mammoth effort that I hope will attract more comment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• I really appreciate the review and extra c/e. Czar and I had been discussing the length issue during the peer review and copyedit. We brought it down to 78 KB from 95 KB, but 78 is still pretty large. Once this review is finished (pass or fail), I plan to nominate it for FA in its present structure so hopefully size won't be a make or break issue in that process. I'm in my fall semester now and have been bogged down in study and testing (that's why I've been delayed in my replies) so I might not be able to make significant changes to the article anytime soon if something like creating a "Presidency of Gamal Abdel Nasser" article would be required. As for the points you brought up above, I think I've addressed them, but someone might have to do the spotcheck if necessary. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, spotchecks are carried out by reviewers, my suggestion was that you yourself might want to revisit anything that was in the back of your mind from editing that could perhaps use some further paraphrasing or tweaking for accuracy. However there's no particular need for that if a reviewer carries out a decent spotcheck; I may not be able to myself but I might ask around as it would be good to get out of the way before you look at FAC. Anyway, thanks for making those changes; I enjoyed reading the article and hope that with further comment it will pass this review and give you a good lead-in for FAC. Pending source review and spotcheck I'm giving it my provisional support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Source spotcheck -- Sorry for the delay, I've ended up doing a further spotcheck myself as my preferred candidate for the task was unavailable; note that I've had to restrict myself to publications available on preview at GoogleBooks...

• FN40: The WP article states Nasser had also felt bitter that his brigade had not been relieved despite the resilience it displayed. -- I'm sure this is correct but the source doesn't express it quite this way, rather it states that the defenders of Falluja were embittered, and they gathered under Nasser's leadership to instigate the coup of '52.
• FN58: Okay.
• FN59: Okay.
• FN222: Okay.
• FN236c: The WP article states Observers noted that the declaration signaled an important shift from political repression to liberalization, although its promises would largely go unfulfilled. The source states The March 1968 declaration signaled a second major shift under Nasser from repression to liberalization, although its most basic promises, like those of March 1954, went unfulfilled. -- First of all, if you say "observers noted" then I'd assume you meant contemporary commentators, reporters, public figures, etc. In fact this is the observation of an author in 2007. Secondly, the phrasing in the source and the WP article are a bit too close for comfort as far as I'm concerned. I'd suggest either recasting the sentence entirely or else quoting/attributing the source passage. Thirdly, isn't the source, Rethinking Nasserism, co-edited by Onn Winckler?
• FN274c: Okay.
• FN293a: Can't see any mention of the New Wafd Party or Jamal Badawi on the cited page.

My conclusion from the above and from a few instances during my general review when accuracy or paraphrasing of sources seemed in question is that, while I haven't discovered major problems, there are enough niggles that I think you need to walk through the article and double-check sourcing/paraphrasing yourself before submitting for FAC. I realise this a daunting task in such a large article, and you may not have added and sourced all the material, but when you nominate an article for ACR or FAC you're taking responsibility for its prose, structure, coverage, image licensing and referencing, and any problems associated with them. By the way, while I was spotchecking, I noticed a few more style points:

• On 25 January 1952, a confrontation between British forces and police at Ismailia resulted in the deaths of forty Egyptian policemen, provoking riots in Cairo the next day which left 76 people dead. -- pls go through the article and ensure consistent representation of two-digit (or larger) numbers.
• loosely-structured -- generally, double-barrelled adjectives where the first word ends in "ly" are not hyphenated, again pls check throughout.

Subject to the above style points being addressed, I'm still happy with the article as far as prose, structure, coverage, and supporting materials go but I can't help feeling that a more comprehensive spotcheck, which I can't supply, would reveal more things that need finetuning. I reiterate that this article is a great undertaking and, I think, deserving ultimately of A-Class and FA status, but I just can't support it all the way at this stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Ian. Thank you for being so diligent with this review. I agree that these points need to be addressed prior to the article being promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Given the issues raised and the length of time it will likely take to work through I have now requested the review be closed with no consensus to promote at this stage - here [2]. This article is very good in my opinion but still needs some work to ensure it is complete. Of course there is nothing stopping the article from being re-nominated once the checks have been completed and I would be more than happy to review it again at this time. Anotherclown (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments. Feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• "one of the towering political figures of modern Middle Eastern history and politics in the 20th century.": How about "one of the towering Middle Eastern political figures of the 20th century" or "one of the towering political figures of the 20th century"? I'm not sure what "modern" means here.
• "only one of two honorable Arab military actions": Not sure what this is saying.
• "The apparent disconnect between the population and the palace": "disconnect" is informal in this context, and I'm not sure what it means here.
• "began a struggle to reduce its influence over his activities": Not sure what this is saying ... you don't need a political struggle to change your own activities. What was the nature of the influence that he was trying to change?
• This is a very long article, and I'm sorry I don't have time to finish it. I copyedited down to Revolution. - Dank (push to talk) 02:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Hey Dank, I hope I addressed your concerns. The last one about the Brotherhood will require more research since the source I use is a bit vague with the early links between Nasser and the Brotherhood. I've been busy with classes lately, but will look into other sources as soon as possible. --Al Ameer (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, everything looks good down to where I stopped, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 03:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • Technical review:
    • A couple of dab links [3]:
      • Mukhabarat
      • Nasser (disambiguation)
    • External links check reveals one dead link [4]:
      • Mass Mediations: New Approaches to Popular Culture in the Middle East and Beyond (info) [uark.edu]
    • Some of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it for consistency [5] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals a couple of minor issues with reference consolidation:
      • {{Harvnb|Dawisha|2009|p=191}} (Multiple references contain the same content)
      • Dawisha191 (Multiple references are using the same name)
      • Aburish310 (Multiple references are using the same name)
    • Images review has been completed above.
    • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
    • A large number of duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK:
      • Royal Military Academy
      • 1936 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty
      • Egyptian_Revolution_of_1952
      • Alexandria
      • Umm Kulthum
      • Helwan
      • Soviet Union
      • Aswan Dam
      • Saudi royal family
      • Khaled Mohieddin
      • Algeria
      • Palestinian Fedayeen
      • Sayyed Qutb
      • Straits of Tiran
      • Zakaria Mohieddin
      • Khartoum
      • Arab Socialist Union
      • Hussein el-Shafei
      • Beirut
      • Helwan
      • Tawfiq al-Hakim
      • Tunisia
      • Sudan
      • Abdullah al-Sallal
      • North Yemen
      • Muammar Gaddafi
      • arteriosclerosis
    • A few of the references are lacking places of publishing.
    • Will read over this today and provide a full review afterwards. Anotherclown (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Article review:
      • "Nasser received a cephalic graze wound from a policeman's bullet...", might be more accessibly worded as "Nasser received a graze to the head from a policeman's bullet..." or something like that.
      • This seems awkward: "Nasser's political activity grew more dominant throughout his school years, such that he only attended 45 days of classes during his last year of secondary school." Perhaps consider something like: "Nasser's involvement in political activity increased throughout his school years, such that he only attended 45 days of classes during his last year of secondary school..."
      • I am confused by what these sentences mean: " He strongly objected to the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, which stipulated the continued presence of British military bases in the country and was backed almost unanimously by Egypt's political forces.[8] Consequently, political unrest in Egypt declined significantly and Nasser resumed his studies at al-Nahda,[16] where he received his leaving certificate later that year." Why did political unrest decline if the opposition to the treaty was so widespread?
      • "In 1937, Nasser applied to the Royal Military Academy for army officer training..." is his motivation for joining the army known?
      • Suggest reordering this sentence: "After graduating from the academy in July 1938,[8] he was posted to the town of Mankabad near his native Beni Mur, and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the infantry." He would have been commissioned on graduating, then posted, not the other way around. Consider instead: "After graduating from the academy in July 1938, he was commissioned a second lieutenant in the infantry, and posted to the town of Mankabad near his native Beni Mur."
      • Wording seems a little awkward here: "...Nasser stayed in touch with the group's members primarily through Amer, who continued to discover interested officers...", consider instead: "Nasser stayed in touch with the group's members primarily through Amer, who continued to seek out interested officers..." or something like that.
      • "...but was ultimately refused entry to the AHC's forces by the Egyptian government for unclear reasons...." → "...but was ultimately refused entry to the AHC's forces by the Egyptian government for reasons that were unclear...."
      • "He sent emissaries to forge an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood in October 1948...", wikilink Muslim Brotherhood here (it is previously linked only in the lead).
      • "...concluded that the agenda of the Brotherhood was not compatible with his nationalism...." do we know why?
      • Repetitive language here: "By then, the organization had expanded to around ninety members; according to one member..." ("member" used twice in the same sentence), perhaps reword?
      • "On 25 January 1952, a confrontation between British forces and the police of Ismailia killed forty Egyptian policemen..." consider instead: "On 25 January 1952, a confrontation between British forces and police at Ismailia resulted in the deaths of forty Egyptian policemen..."
      • "...made songs praising Nasser's nationalism..." consider instead: "...wrote songs praising Nasser's nationalism."
      • Colourful prose here: "Nasser's Bandung efforts devotedly sought a proclamation for the avoidance of international defense alliances..." consider something like: "At Bandung Nasser's sought a proclamation for the avoidance of international defense alliances..."
      • typo here I think: "...his promotion of pan-Arabism was viewed as a threat pro-Western states in the region...", consider "... his promotion of pan-Arabism was viewed as a threat to pro-Western states in the region..."
      • "...In September, Turkish troops massed along their Syrian border..." → "...In September, Turkish troops massed along the Syrian border..."
      • missing word here I think: "...and allowed broadcast of anti-colonial propaganda from Cairo...", consider instead "...and allowed the broadcast of anti-colonial propaganda from Cairo..."
      • some redundancy here: "...Amer's increasing autonomy forced Nasser, who had already had diabetes..." → "...Amer's increasing autonomy forced Nasser, who already had diabetes..."
      • Repetitive language: "Nasser refused the call[208][209] upon determination that the air force lacked pilots and Amer's handpicked officers lacked competence." (specifically "lacked" twice) Consider instead: "Nasser refused the call upon determination that the air force lacked pilots and Amer's handpicked officers were incompetent."
      • "...causing a large exodus of Egyptians from that area....", suggest more simply: "...causing an exodus of Egyptians from that area."
      • I have no expertise in this area, so will confine my cmts mostly to prose. That said I get the feeling that the article covers the topic fairly well (other the few areas above where I have asked for some clarification) and I couldn't see any obvious issues with bias / balance etc.
      • The article covers a lot of ground and is quite large, but it seems to do so using summary style and it didn't seem to be excessive.
      • Given the nature of the subject (a major political figure) and the events he was involved in I think the article does a fairly good job of presenting these appropriately and in good faith.
      • Only possible issue I see is that the criticism section could possibly be expanded (although don't really know of major criticism that is missing given my unfamiliarity with the subject). Happy to accept it as is if this is reflective of the literature though.
      • This is an important article and I am impressed with what you have produced so far. Unfortunately I have only been able to go through it fairly quickly (working tonight and dealing with a few issues by phone), and I am not really familiar with the subject. Happy to discuss any issues that you disagree with. Will have another look once you have responded to my cmts.
      • All the best with the project. Anotherclown (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the review and the suggestions. I believe I've fixed/addressed the points you brought up above. Concerning the technical review, the first disambiguation link is just a hatnote, but I think it's necessary to keep as long as "Nasser" redirects to the article. The one about "mukhabarat" is trickier and I'm thinking about just removing the sentence altogether. When it's used in this instance it's not describing a particular Egyptian intelligence agency, but the state of domestic espionage in general. For the prose review, I took all of your suggestions. As for criticism, it was a bit longer before, but as with many sections in the article, I reduced it per the peer review/copyedit that was undertaken prior to this A-class nomination. Everything that was rid of was redundant though. I'm sure there's more criticism of Nasser out there, but I believe the major criticisms directly related to him have been addressed. --Al Ameer (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
        • P.S. Actually, I forgot to add his motivation for entering the military academy. Will add it as soon as I can find it. --Al Ameer (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
          • Those changes are looking good so far. Pls ping me if you can find any info on his reason for joining the Army and once you have finished adding the locations to the references and I'll have a final look. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
            • Found some info about his motivations to enter the service and topple the monarchy in the Aburish book. Please copyedit the new additions if necessary. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That looks fine. I added the missing publication locations. One last issue: there is some inconsistency in the presentation of ISBNs. Some use hyphens and others do not. Can this be rectified? Anotherclown (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've used a script to reformat them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Hawkeye. I've added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks to both of you. Cheers --Al Ameer (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support Comments: G'day, I had a quick look and it looks quite impressive. I have a couple of minor suggestions:
  • please check for consistency of English variation. I found some US and some British spelling, for instance: "kilometre" (British), but "defense" (US);
  • repetition: "After briefly returning from Sudan, Nasser returned in September 1942.." (returning and returned);
  • "within the Egyptian Armed Forces's..." --> "within the Egyptian Armed Force's";
  • "Nationalization of Suez Canal" --> "Nationalization of the Suez Canal";
  • "Nasser's personal hobbies included photography, chess, magazines in Arabic, English, and French, American films, and classical music" --> "Nasser's personal hobbies included photography, playing chess, reading magazines in Arabic, English, and French, American films, and listening to classical music"?
  • If you wouldn't mind looking into these points, I will come back try to come back and have a more thorough look a little later. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the pointing those out. I fixed them, but for the American/British spellings, I couldn't find any other inconsistent words from a scan of the article or through searching for specific common words like "centre" or "organise". To be clear, the spelling I've used in the article is American. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
      • G'day, I had another read through today. Happy with your changes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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.

---

Result was no consensus to promote at this time. EyeSerene^talk 08:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Klis Fortress

Nominator(s): Kebeta (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I belive that it meets all of the requirements. The architecture section was expanded shortly after the article passed GA, so there might be some problems regarding prose & grammar in that section. Kebeta (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• The book by Mr Listes is cited many times for a page range that is about 170 pages long. Can this be made more speecific? Is that the whoel book? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• The preview of a book itself isn't available on internet (on google books), but the content of a book is available on several internet pages. Like here for example. So, I can't cite a specific page, only the whole book (all 169 pages). What do you suggest, how to solve this problem? Regards, Kebeta (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'd suggest citing a section. GregorB (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• You mean to cite a name of a section, or? Kebeta (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, section name. This is somewhat unusual, but e.g. {{cite book}} supports it (parameters chapter and trans_chapter). Of course, {{cite book}} is not meant to be used for abbreviated refs, which is the case here. GregorB (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• As I wrote to AustralianRupert, I replaced "cite book" with "cite web", deleted book from Bibliography, and inserted that book into Further reading. Is this o.k. to you? Kebeta (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. It is still a bit inconvenient, since the text is really large, but AFAIK there are no requirements on identifying part of a source (such as section/page number) when this source is a web page and not a book. GregorB (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • There are no dab links, and ext links all work (no action required);  Done
  • Some images have alt text, but others don't (for instance the 3D display of Klis Fortress). It is not a requirement for A class at the moment, but it may become so later, so can I suggest adding it in? WP:ALT might help to show what is needed. Also follow this link to see which images have alt text and which don't: [7];
    • All images within a body of the article (not in the Infobox Military Structure) have alt text.  Done
  • I agree with Yellowmonkey's comment about the Listes source cited in Footnote # 4. That is a very large page range and I feel you need to be more specific about what page is used as the reference for these points;
    • See above (comment of user YellowMonkey).  Done
      • Unfortunately, in my opinion, I think that this is an issue that might stand in the way of this article being promoted. You really need to be able to cite the exact page numbers of where you got the information from, otherwise how do you know that the book actually states what the citations have been provided for? My only suggestion as to how this can be solved is to find other sources for those citations. Or, failing that, is there some way you can get a hold of a hard copy version of the book through your local library or via an online book service (perhaps this link might help: [8]). Sorry, this isn't much help. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Can we cite a web page instead of a book? On the bottom of the web page there is a note which says that the source is "Klis: Prošlost, Toponimi, Govor" by Srećko Listeš.
          • I think that would be acceptable. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
            • O.K. I replaced "cite book" with "cite web", deleted book from Bibliography, and inserted that book into Further reading. Kebeta (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • some ISBNs have hyphens and others don't: they should be consistent (either all with or all without, I don't believe there is a preferred style, just a need for consistency);
    • 3 out of 20 books don't have hyphens within ISBNs, and I can't find thear ISBNs with hyphens. What should I do? Kebeta (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I'd suggest removing all the hyphens in all of them. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)  Done
  • is it necessary to separate the Bibliography like that? Use of terms like "foreign" and "domestic" I think should be avoided as what classifies as foreign and what classifies as Domestic? If you want to break them up, perhaps do so by language rather than origin or point of view;  Done
  • The titles of the sources are capitalised inconsistently. For example compare Collection with Bousfield. They should be capitalised per Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Composition titles;  Done
  • Can you provide a citation for Note # 1? — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)  Done
• Support: all my concerns have been dealt with. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks AustralianRupert for your review, any new remarks on improving the article are appreciated. Kebeta (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'll chip in a Support. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "...many Croatia's rulers." Check typo.
    • I don't see typo error. Can you point it?
  • "The reign of his successor, Duke Trpimir I, from the House of Trpimirović, is significant for spreading Christianity, as he built a fortress, a church and the first Benedictine monastery in Croatia in Rižinice under Klis." This is a bit klunky, with too many phrases: consider splitting it into two sentences. "Under Klis" is also a bit confusing. Below the fortress in the valley? Actually under the fortress dug into the mountain? Please clarify. Done
  • " During the reign of the first Croatian king Tomislav, the castle of Klis along with Biograd, was his chief residence." This doesn't scan well, maybe "...Klis and Biograd were his chief residences"? Done
  • "In March, 1242, at Klis Fortress, Tatars under the leadership of Kadan suffered a major defeat, while in pursuit of a Hungarian army led by King Béla IV of Hungary." One comma is necessary in "...at Klis Fortress, Tatars...". The rest are unnecessary. Done
  • "After failing against Croatian forces, the Mongols retreated and Béla IV rewarded Croatian towns and nobility with a substantial amount of riches." Grammar is a bit off again. Should be something like "After their defeat by Croatian forces, the Mongols retreated, and Béla IV rewarded many Croatian towns and nobles with substantial riches." This is also too vague - what are 'substantial riches'? How does this relate to Klis, was it one of those towns? Done
  • Regarding the previous excerpt, it is not clear to a novice reader that Tartars are Mongols in this context. Done
  • "Klis Fortress is probably best known for its defense against the Ottoman Empire in the early 16th century." Perhaps "Ottoman invasion of Europe in the early 16th century"? Needs a link to the invasion. Done
  • "...two-and-half..." should be "two and a half". Done
  • "...as the elite Croatian militant sect" -> "...as an elite Croatian militant sect". the implies singular. Done
  • "...thus moving the border of Christian and Muslim Europe further east..." -> "...thus moving the border between Christian and Muslim Europe further east..." Done
  • "The Venetians restored and additionally enlarged the fortress, which was soon after conquered by the Austrians." -> "The Venetians restored and enlarged the fortress but it was the conquered by the Austrians shortly thereafter." Conquered in what year? Is there a link to the siege, battle or campaign in which it was conquered? Done
  • "Today, Klis Fortress is a tourist attraction in Croatia, where the visitors to this historic military structure can see an array of arms, armor, and traditional uniforms in a museum inside the fortress." is klunky. Perhaps "Today, Klis Fortress contains a museum where visitors to this historic military structure can see an array of arms, armor, and traditional uniforms." Done
  • This is not a comprehensive list of problems as it only covers the introduction. A review is not meant to be a copyedit: I am trying to point out examples of areas needing improvement.
  • If it seems I am being too harsh, please note that I check article text against one standard: Featured article criteria. The content of this article is fascinating, but it needs thorough copyediting. I eagerly look forward to seeing it with some more polish. Doug (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Doug for your thorough review. I am actually glad for you being too harsh, because I want to improve this article the best I can, and any remark is appreciated. Please try to understand that I can't compete with professional English required for Featured article criteria. I will try to implement all your remarks, but you can also edit the article by your self. I don't own the article. I am glad that you find the content of this article fascinating, and I hope that the wiki community will bring it one day to a Featured article. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I don't have the time any more to comprehensively copyedit articles and that is why I dedicate my time to reviews and provide some pointers for improvement. Bear in mind that editing the article is generally taken to invalidate a vote in the review process. Perhaps you can enlist a copyeditor to review and act on the comments you receive here. Doug (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Doug for your review and for your advice. A couple of editors from the "Guild of Copy Editors", have already helped within the copyediting by now. I guess this was the best we could do. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Your lead could do with a little trimming; it reads a little like a tourist pamphlet on the fortress. For example, why do we need to know that the person x's reign spread Christianity into the kingdom, or who controlled territory in the area and when, or that "A byword regarding the resistance of Klis and its people's strength survives: It is difficult for Klis because it is on the rock and it is difficult for the rock because Klis is on it."? If it doesn't briefly outline the fortress's history I say it should be trimmed out and explained in detail in the body. If you have a good reason for having it in the article lead, then I will reconsider.
    • The main point of this fortress is its position, not arhitecture or something else. We are not talking only about geographic position (perched on an isolated rocky eminence, inaccessible on three sides), but also about a political position. The fortress was always a kind of border between medieval states. For example, during Littoral Croatian Duchy, Klis was in the hands of Croatians and the near by city of Split and others dalmatians town were controlled by the Byzantine Empire. Although just a few km from the sea, Klis was mainly in continental part (controlled by....), as opposed to a littoral part (controlled by....). As such it greatly contributed to a developement of a Croatian society, religion and state it self. In order to be NPOV the best I can, I avoided such statements in the article if I didn't found a good realible english source written by a foreign writer. "The person x's reign spread Christianity into the kingdom from the Klis Fortress" is sourced and relevant not only to the fortress's history, but to wider area also. And the centre of that area (later kingdom) was the Klis it self. BTW, I deleted the last sentance from the lead.
  • For that matter, the article could stand a good copyedit, I see bits and pieces of info that could be streamlined for clarity and for a reduction in wordage.
    • As I wrote above to Doug......A couple of editors from the "Guild of Copy Editors", have already helped within the copyediting by now. I guess this was the best we could do. What I plan to do is this: after the article pass A-Class review (which I hope, since A-Class doesn't require more than GA in this matter), I will made a request for FA copyedit, before submitting the article for FA review. I am not in hurry, but if anybody want's to do it before, he/she is more than welcomed.
  • Your infobox seems...long, to say the least. I would put worth a position that the maps included in the infobox may do better in section dedicated to the particular time period being addressed. In this manner we can reduce the size of the infobox, which should make it easier to interpret. Also, a friendly reminder: when images are given a specific size (ie 200px, 200px, etc) the computer that said images are being viewed on can not resize the images to create a better match for the monitor size. For those with small monitors the images may be reducing the text in the article and causing things to bunch up. Just something to consider.
    • See point four below.
  • Your history sections seem a little thin, mostly like a brief overview of the time line; could more be said in these two-three paragraph sections? TomStar81 (Talk) 18:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Your points three and four caused me a same problems while I was writing the article. I was most afraid not to go of the subject, so I tryed to be as brief as I could. As for "Your history sections seem a little thin, mostly like a brief overview of the time line", I wrote everything that I could find in a good realible english source written by a foreign writer. I used Croatian sources only to confirm and to clarify foreign sources. And I wrote the article in this way to avoid any POV (that's way there are none edit wars in this large article). Croatian sources are used on a large-scale in arhitecture section, as there were none other sources to use, and the arhitecture is not controversial. So, I don't think that sections are only a brief overview of the time line. But, there is a period from 1348 to 1437 that could have its own section. That is a kind of an answer to your statement (Your infobox seems...long, to say the least). In the infobox I tryed to put all rulers (and thear overlords) which were in some way related within the fortress, and in the body of the article I explained the main events throughout fortress's more than two thousand year-long history. Did I succeed in doing so, I guess that is up to a community to decide. As for "I would put worth a position that the maps included in the infobox may do better in section dedicated to the particular time period being addressed", I decided to put some images in the infobox rather than into the body, because I didn't want to make a "sandwich" out of text.

Hi TomStar81! You raised some good questions here, and I will try to explain them the best I can. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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.

---

Withdrawn at nominator's request -MBK₀₀₄ 05:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

John S. Loisel

Nominator(s): GregJackP (talk)

Second nomination, the previous A Class Review is here.

The article has subsequently gone through a Good Article review and was promoted and a peer review. Hopefully it has been improved enough for an A-Class article. Thanks, GregJackP (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No dabs, links check out with link checker. Alt text is present, but I'm not sure it's needed on all the emblems. Someone who knows more about alt text please check that. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Involved Support
  • I supported previously during last ACR and have done a bit of tweaking during that process, so I may not be impartial anymore;
  • IMO though it is a well written, well referenced article and is probably as comphrensive as it is going to get due to a number issues that Greg mentioned during the last ACR (i.e. the fire etc);
  • Also one of the main sticking points from last review as I recall was the way that the article dealt with Loisel's victories in a separate paragraph, making it a little disjointed. This has now been rewritten into the prose and incorporated into the narrative, so hopefully this is no longer an issue;
  • The awards and decorations have now been fully cited also.
  • Good work Greg and good luck. Anotherclown (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comments, leaning to oppose
  • My initial thought is that this does not contain enough meat for A-Class. Its level of detail is probably appropriate (just) for GA, but no higher IMO. As a particular example, his career from Korea until retirement -- almost 20 years -- is dismissed in a couple of sentences.

• Initially the two sections were combined into a single section of Korea and Post-War, but were split in an earlier review. There is just not a lot of information published on either of those eras. GregJackP (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• • I'm also not sure about the prose quality. For an example, again in the post-war career section, Later assignments included tours as the Commander, 83rd Fighter Group and Deputy Commander, 4th Tactical Fighter Wing reads like a bullet point, not something I'd expect to find as the first sentence of a section in an encyclopedic article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Changed the prose. GregJackP (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose - I completely agree with Ian, but further issues include:
  • The prose could use a good copyedit in general, but a major issue is that there is a significant amount of close repetition. A prominant example is the use of "assigned" and its variants, particularly in the first two paragraphs of the "World War II" section.
  • Again, agree with Ian about the Korea and Poat-war sections. Given the length of the two, they should be combined which is what I recommended in the previous ACR and raises some concerns about whether suggestions have been taken on or even considered.
  • Still not happy about the presentation of honours. These medals, and particularly those honours mentioned in the "Other honors" subsection, should be mentioned in the prose, not in a bullet list at the end.
  • Some of the citations and references do not appear to be formated quite correctly, particularly cite #16. I would recommend you have a look at using Template:Cite book for those books listed as references (the citse for these are fine, though, but you could have a look at using Template:Harvnb for these), Template:Cite web for the internet sources and Template:Cite news for newspaper articles.
  • Also, what makes acepilots.com and adamsplanes.com reliable?

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - based on the time that this has run, and my inability to find addition information to further improve the article, I would like to withdraw the nomination. I don't see how I could get past the oppose comments right now - I do appreciate all of y'all taking the time to look at this again. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Greg, of course that is your right if thats what you want, but I think there are still improvements that can be made to the article even if you cannot add any content. For instance there are a number of valid points raised above that are a good starting point at least. I have had a chop at the references so far at least. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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.

---

• Withdrawn at nominator's request -MBK₀₀₄ 03:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ordnance QF 18 pounder

Nominator(s): Rcbutcher (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the subject is of major military historical importance and warrants A class treatment. The article has been greatly updated since last review and now includes fully referenced historical and technical details & relevant images. Rcbutcher (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - a significant proportion of this article is unreferenced. Also, there are MoS issues with the capitalisation of non-proper nouns in the subheadings which concerns me as to whether or not the rest of the article as a whole is compliant with MoS. In effect, this article fails criteria A1 and A4. Sorry, but at the moment the article is not quite up to A-Class standard. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - as above the lacks of references jumps out can I suggest, you re submit this for a peer review which will help towards A Class. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is my first attempt at a A class assessment so please be patient... to me the important points made are referenced, and to reference every single piece of information would make it unreadable. Everything in the article comes from the sources mentioned. So what exactly needs to be "referenced" ?Rcbutcher (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Every point needs to be referenced, at the moment there are large paragraphs of text unreferenced. If you want I can add tags ?
• Some of the notes are not referenced 5 and 6 for example others like 30 need page numbers, others need adding to the Bibliography 31 Farndale for example.
• No disambiguation links - well done.
• The images all need alt text.
• The combat use section needs cutting down. The First World War section needs to be a similar size to the Second World War section and all combined under one heading.
• Some of the images are redundant the one in the 1914 section for example. Even expanded it is very hard to see any guns.
• The Extended specification section - can this not be included in the inf box template ? If not prose would be better than bullet points.
• With many images in the text is there a need for an image gallery with only two pictures.
• The World War I Ammunition section - there are some good cut away pictures in this section - but the article is about the gun, agreed some mention of the ammo is needed but this could provide the basis for a good article in its own right.

Don't give up its a good start.

--Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with the comments above (and particularly that the article provides a good basis for further improvements). Could I suggest that this A class review be closed and this discussion be moved to a peer review? Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Nick, providing Rcbutcher is okay with this? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Having read the comments and notes added to the page, I agree, it has quantity but lacks some quality.. should be peer review. Thanks for the feedback so far. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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.

---

• Withdrawn at nominator's request -MBK₀₀₄ 06:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

SMS Árpád

Nominator(s): White Shadows

I'm nominateing this article for an A-class review because I belive that it meets all of the requirements. It's a fairly nice article and well sourced but it is small. There is not that much info for the Habsburg class battleships. Like the other ships in the AH navy, they just sat in Pola or Trieste for all of WWI exept the bombardment of Ancona. Any comments are welcome :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

• There are books listed that are not used in the article. Why? --Brad (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've fixed it by removeing the non used books.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Likewise my comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Habsburg essentially apply here as well. --Brad (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - same reasoning as Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Habsburg. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comments:
  • no dab links, no external links (so there are none that can be broken) (no action required);
  • one image has alt text and the other doesn't. I know it is not currently a requirement, but I think it would make sense to add it in while we are here in case it becomes a requirement again (but I wouldn't oppose on this by itself);
  • could the lead be expanded a bit to clarify the lack of service history? For instance, you could say the bit about the bombardment of Ancona and then add "but was decommissioned afterwards and used as harbor defense ship..." etc.;
  • in regards to her decommissioning, could you clarify why Arpad was decommissioned in the World War I section?
    • It was because of a coal shortage in Austria-hungary that she remained moored in Pola for the entire war following the bombardment of Ancona. I've added that in.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 22:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • in the World War I section you have "Austro-Hungarian Navy" but elsewhere you have "Austro-Hungarian navy" (difference in capitalisation of navy), e.g. first paragraph of the Construction and layout section;
    • I've made all refernces to the AH Navy be capitalized.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • in the World War I section, could you provide a date when the ship took part in the bombardment of Ancona?
    • 23 May 1915.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • in relation to Footnotes 5 & 6 you have "Larry Phelps", but in the References section you have "Harry Phelps" - can you please determine which is correct and rectify?
    • According to Google Books, it was Harry Phelps. Sorry about that.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to provide some dates that the ship was involved in supporting the flight of Goeben and Breslau. "The early period of World War I" is a bit unclear;
    • Working on it.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Done.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References section two of the ISBNs have hyphens, the others don't;
    • Done.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Footnotes section Footnote # 1 uses "and" and # 2 uses "&" - it should be consistent;
    • Done.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • also in the Footnotes section Footnote # 1 has a year, but none of the others have them. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Done.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support: All my concerns have been addressed. I'm fairly happy to support but would like to see if those who know more about ships content believe it to be complete. Brad and Ed, do your opposes still stand or have your concerns been addressed? — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If needed. I can give the exact targets that Arpad bombarded in the attackon Ancona but other than that. I've pulled out all the stops. The ship did nothing other than the bombardment of Ancona and the flight of Goeben and Breslau. I do hope that there is anough coverage to let you support but if not, I'm afraid that I may not have any more info to give you all.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose; my reasoning is in the A-class review for SMS Habsburg. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I've added my support above because all my concerns have been addressed and to be honest I don't feel that there is anything else that can be added to the article (I am, of course, however, a layman). Unless someone can state specifically what else needs to be included in the article, I don't think it if fair on the article or the editor to oppose due to a lack of content. ACR concerns should be actionable. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Although I found additional material on Arpad and Habsburg in some (in German) books, these are not required for the English language wiki, as I understand it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I formally withdraw my nomination of this ACR. Perhaps I'll come back to it at a later date but it has become obvious that it will not pass at this time. Thanks for !voteing :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 16:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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.

---

• Withdrawn at nominator's request -MBK₀₀₄ 06:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

SMS Habsburg

Nominator(s): White Shadows talk

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because User:White Shadows asked me to do so. Comments would be nice. Buggie111 (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm nominating this article for an A-Class review because I think that it meets all of the required criteria. It's well referenced, covers all of the main points (or lack of points as the AH navy simply rotted away at port for 15+ years) and is should be gramatically correct and contains pictures. Any comments or concers would be welcome :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

• There are books listed that are not used in the article. Why? Tucker's book is an encyclopedia. Don't source an encyclopedia article with another encyclopedia. --Brad (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Never knew that. Is there a specific policy stating that? Buggie111 (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the books that are not used in the article. And Is there and rule or policy or even an A-class criteria that discounts encyclopedias?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Removing the books wasn't the answer I was looking for. When I see books listed that weren't cited as sources I begin to wonder why they weren't used to round out the article. Why where they listed and not used?
  • I have seen several articles get smacked at FAC for citing an encyclopedia and if I'm not mistaken Ed had this problem once.
  • Additionally what makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.cityofart.net/bship/sms_habsburg.html
    • http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/habsburg_class.htm#Habsburg
  • Ed and Sturmvogel know these ships much better than I and if they're claiming that there is not enough research and information I'm inclined to agree with them. --Brad (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, what makes them not a RS? And can you please show me a link to Ed's FAC that got failed due to his use of an encyclopedia? And I added the books in there by accident. I never intended to use them in the article and I copied the set from the main article, Habsburg class battleship. Sorry for the confusion.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 17:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I understand the problems inherent in writing about a ship that rarely left port and that there are a dearth of sources on such a ship. However, two paragraphs of information is simply not enough for me. I can't suggest any additional sources, but foreign-language ones may be necessary if this is to receive a full account. What I can suggest aside from that:
  • "After Italy entered the war on the side of France and Great Britain, the Austro-Hungarian navy bombarded several Italian port cities along the Adriatic coast. Habsburg took part in the bombardment of Ancona." -- okay, what cities. What did Habsburg do? Find books that detail these actions (as opposed to warship-oriented books). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I found out was places Habsburg bombarded on her own in the bombardment of Ancona as well as adding in a few more citatins and overall small expansions of the service history of the ship. However, you may still think that there is not enough info but every source that I find tells me that she remained in her moorings for the rest of the war and only left port once to go on target practice due to a shortage of coal.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 03:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• This seems a bit lacking in sources. Why no reference to The Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Navy by Sokol? Or The development of the Austro-Hungarian navy 1897 - 1914 : a study in the operation of dualism or Seemacht Österreich : die kaiserlich und königliche Kriegsmarine, 1382-1918. I pulled these up on OCLC with a simple search on Austro-Hungarian Navy. I'm sure that there are other sources that might be useful in expanding this ship's history like Warship International.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • From Warship International:
    • Austrian dreadnoughts in WWI – Their data and final fate. Rene Greger. 1/65:9.
    • Austro-Hungarian battleships. R. F. Scheltema de Heere. N1/73:11. §N3/73:231(2): §N4/73:351; §N1/74:12; §N2/74:172; §N4/74:381; §N4/80:307. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I'll try to add in those sources. (Though I doubt that I'll be able to expand the text itself)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 13:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • no dab links, ext links work (no action required);
  • images seem appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • just a suggestion, but alt text could be added to the images. I know it is not currently a requirement, but I think it would make sense to add it in while we are here in case it becomes a requirement again (but I wouldn't oppose on this by itself);
    • Working on it.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
      • All images now have alt text with the exeption of the purely decorative image of AH's naval flag.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • could the lead be expanded a bit to clarify the lack of service history?
    • Working on it.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Expanded.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 22:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • please check whether you are using British or American English; in the Peacetime section you have "defence", but in the World War I section you have "defense". (You also have "harbor" so I'm assumning it is US spelling you are using);
  • in the References section two of the ISBNs have hyphens, the others don't;
    • Working on it.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Is that a problem? Do they all need to have hiphens or can they be "mixed"? And if I do need to fix this, how?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 22:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Footnotes section Footnote # 1 uses "&" and # 8 uses "and" - it should be consistent;
  • also in the Footnotes section Footnote # 8 has a year, but none of the others have them. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Is the year required for all of the footnotes or am I allowed to remove the one year considering that there is a full set of books with all of the information in the bibliography section?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 22:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who crossed out you comments. (Helps me figure out which ones are done. If you consider this refractoring your comments then just tell me and I'll revert them)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 22:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me, but I'd advise caution with it. Some editors might not like it, so I'd suggest putting {{Done}} beside it (which will produce a green tick) and letting them decide if you've addressed their concerns. Regarding the years in citations, it is not a requirement so it can be removed if you want, however, if you have it for one you should have it for all IMO. Regarding the ISBN hyphens I don't believe there is a requirement for them to be there, or not to be there, just that you are consistent in your approach. If you want to not use them, they can just be manually removed by deleting them in edit mode. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought that it was not appropriate to use the Done checkmark in ACR's. Thanks for the clarification. I'll also go and remove the hyphens and the year as well. After that, I'll have addressed all of your comments.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You might be right about the ticks. Some editors at ACR try to avoid both ticks and strikes by simply responding below the point saying what they've done to address it and then letting the reviewer decide whether or not they've addressed their comments (and to strike or put the done ticks). If you are at all concerned, I'd suggest taking that third approach as it should (hopefully) be the less likely to get you into trouble. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Done with all of your comments. And I'll take your advice on that now.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• CommentSupport: All my concerns have been met. I believe that there's little more in the way of content that could be added (although I don't know much about ships articles), so I am happy to support. Can those that have opposed please take another look and state whether their opposes still stand or whether concerns have been met? Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose for this one and SMS Árpád, and I want to stress that this isn't a criticism of the editors or their skill with this article or their selection of a topic. Some readers are quite interested in the design and engineering of these ships, of course, but I suspect the bulk of the readership of A-class ship articles are more interested in what happened, and what happened is 3 paragraphs for this ship and 2 paragraphs for the Árpád, and apparently nothing more is on the way. A-class is a kind of "branding", a way of pointing readers to the articles we're proudest of and that we think they'll enjoy the most, and it's a bad idea to "dilute the brand", as the marketers say, because readers (like it or not) will make assumptions about A-class articles they haven't read based on the ones they've read. I wouldn't want this to be their introduction to our A-class articles. - Dank (push to talk) 15:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm probably losing some people here talking about branding. This is from brand: "Individual brand names naturally allow greater flexibility by permitting a variety of different products, of differing quality, to be sold without confusing the consumer's perception of what business the company is in or diluting higher quality products." That's my point; "branding" these two articles as GAs, and providing links to the GA and A-class reviews, as we do, gives appropriate credit and lets readers see the attention to detail and the nice things people said about the articles, without changing their expectations of A-class articles in general. - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Also see WT:WikiProject_Ships#A-class_criteria. - Dank (push to talk) 16:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree on both accounts. I think that opposeing this ACR based off of other articles is quite frankly rude and insulting to me and Buggie111. The service recoed secion is so small bacuase they never did anything. It's not our fault that the AHN rotted in port for 15+ years. There is no loack of information. Every detail about this ship has been given and every action that she did has been discussed in the text. Not a single point has been left out. As a result, the artice covers thye topic very throughly even though there was a lack of actions that the battleship(s) actually did.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 22:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading one FA reviewer who said that he'd oppose anything under 20k as not being notable enough to deserve FA status. Perhaps that's part of what you're running into here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I once had that same thought in my head. I withdraw my co-nom, as RL and other stuff is taking up alot of time. Buggie111 (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to still carry the nomination on. Gentlemen, let me ask you all a question. What good is it to oppose an article for an ACR if it is under 20K? I understand the concept but every detail (or lack thereoff) has been brought forth in this ACR. This article whent from just barely a GA to one of my best pieces of work due to this and yet I have yet to recive a single support. I'm not asking for sympathy votes but if there is no material about this ship, well then there just is not material. Simply, she left port for exercises in 1904-05, bombarded a few ey places in Ancona in 1915 and whent back to pola for 3 1/2 years. I took that little sentence and expanded it to 3 paragraphs. There are 5 requirements to an AC article:

• A1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and 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.
• A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail.
• A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
• A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant.
• A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate.

No where does it say, this article must be X characters long or xK in size. This allows articles like this one to become AC articles. SMS Habsburg meets all of these requirements and more. It does cover all major facts and details since there are only 3 major details to cover. That does'nt mean that it should fail, just that there is less to talk about than other articles.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 22:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I've added my support above because all my concerns have been addressed and to be honest I don't feel that there is anything else that can be added to the article (I am, of course, however, a layman). Unless someone can state specifically what else needs to be included in the article, I don't think it if fair on the article or the editor to oppose due to a lack of content. ACR concerns should be actionable. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Eventual Support I'm planning to support this once the issues with prose are addressed. I'm not a judge of the ship's overall importance, but it seems to me that the issues of the AH navy itself are notable. I'd like to see this article put the navy itself into context (this article and Parsec's Erzherzog. How big was the navy? what did the advent of the Tetterhof (?) ships entail? Were they bigger/faster/better, thus making the Habsburg obsolete? AH's 19th and 20th century problems were acerbated in part by its limited ports, and the difficulty of maintaining blue water access from the Adriatic. I've made some specific suggestions to Parsec, and I'd like to see if he and Buggie and White shadows can deal with them. As for the prose issues on Habsburg (and I suppose Arpad, but I haven't read it yet), I'll help with those. If the action of the ships was limited, then so be it. However, if that's the case, perhaps it's interesting not only to focus on the details of the ship (specifications) but also on the big picture of the ship and the navy. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. You pointed out that there was an issue with the prose. Can you point out where as I'm not the greatest writer on wikipedia. Is a copy-edit in need? As for the "whole picture" idea, I agree with you and I'll try to add some more detail about Habsburg's role in the AHN in the next few days. Thanks.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've done a light ce, and it's better now (although not perfect). Go ahead and add, and then we'll see what needs to happen prose-wise. Basically, it was very repetitive. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to add something about the navy generally, let me know when you've done it. I found some additional material (although in Germany) on the details of the shelling of Anacona. here. and here is the Austro-Hungarian Navy Order of Battle in August 1914. There is more on the Arpad here. She apparently had an additional foray in 1917? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll try to incorporate that into the articles if possible :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone here speek German, because I certainly do not.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

My German isn't great but I'll give it a shot, what would you like translated? - Dank (push to talk) 21:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much anything that mentions Habsburg or Aprad in it :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Dank, if you follow those links I posted above, it will take you to the sections of the books that mention the Arpad and the Habsburg. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There is also a problem on the List of the ships, under the class: Erzherzog Ferdinand Max class, SMS Habsburg (1868) links to this ship. You'll needs someone who reads German, and there are several people in the project, including myself, who do. The Order of Battle is self-evident, however. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what did you mean by the first sentence or two?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

the template at the bottom of the article links to this article: List_of_ships_of_the_Austro-Hungarian_Navy, and under this section, List_of_ships_of_the_Austro-Hungarian_Navy#Armorclad ships and River Monitors, the list shows the Erzherzog Ferdinand Max class includes SMS Habsburg (1865).. That Habsburg is not the same as the subject of the article under review, although it links to the article. This needs to be fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

where is this going? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I really do not know. Some artilces just will never pass an ACR....--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you been able to incorporate some of the other material? Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Dank has not translated it yet. When he does I'll add it in.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 22:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure he's planning on doing it. Your response to him was fairly ambiguous--the parts that mention the ship. Did you look at the text? Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did. But I cannot even read what it says in German due to the wierd hand writeing...--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I formally withdraw my nomination of this ACR. Perhaps I'll come back to it at a later date but it has become obvious that it will not pass at this time. Thanks for !voteing :)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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.

---

• Not promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 23:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sidney Edgerton

Nominator(s): Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch}

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I have put quite a lot of work into this article, and I am prepared to extend or do whatever to get this article to A-Class. I also believe that this process is more efficiently run than if I nominated this article for Good-Class. Thanks and Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Lead needs to be expanded and dashes done for the page ranges YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Added to lead, and I was wondering where you wanted me to add dashes. Thanks and Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 02:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I did an example. it was showing up as a hyphen and not a full dash YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Expanded Introduction and fixed dashes. Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 18:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with dab links or external links. Almost all of your images are in need of alt text though.
  • More to follow... TomStar81 (Talk) 06:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • Added Alt Text to all images. Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 21:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Object Lead is still too short and hyphens are still in the page ranges YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Expanded Lead, and fixed the rest of the dashes. Thanks and Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 20:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Oliver, I can see that you've worked very hard on this and appreciate that you'd like some quicker feedback than you'd get a GA review. May I suggest you withdraw from the A class review and try peer review first? I'm going to leave some suggestions on the talk page. While you've moved considerably further than a stub, this article needs a lot of help. As I understand ACR, it's for articles that are considerably further along than this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice, but I would like to see the opinion of others before I remove the nomination. I have already corrected the problems that were brought up by others, and I will continue correcting any other problems. If the opinion of others shows a consistency with the fact that I need to remove my nomination, of course I will remove it. Thanks and Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 22:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to show, as an example of an A-Class, Egmont Prinz zur Lippe-Weißenfeld. I believe that the article, Sidney Edgerton, is much more extensive than the example article, and Sidney Edgerton should be an A-Class article. Thanks and Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 22:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This article, as of now, is no where near the quality of the article you've cited as an example. This is not to say that it won't be, however. It needs a great deal more work. I can see that you've expanded the lead in quality, however, so that is a very good first step. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at your sources, and you have some great information to work with. The section on his term as territorial governor should be expanded. What did he do as territorial governor? What were his policies (such as those he set forth in his first speech to the legislature)? What kinds of appointments did he make? How did he deal with the anti-unionist forces? ... How did he get to Montana? What kind of trip was it? Who came with him? Did they go by land or water? .... That whole story about being in Virginia could be told better, and contextualized so that it is understandable. As it reads now, it sounds like he went to settle the affairs of John Brown, but actually, he went to examine the development of the siegeworks. What was the significance of that? The driver didn't jump off the cart, did he? It was another soldier? Who escorted him out of Virginia? Just a few comments. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will get to work.

P.S. Thanks for the tweaks on the Intro! Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 23:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Also I wanted to mention that Edgerton did go to Virginia to settle Brown's affairs. Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 23:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Expanded sections on his term as territorial governor and his term as chief justice in Idaho Territory, including his experiences with Native Americans, his policies with a Democratic Party majority in the House, his trip to Montana, his trip with his family to Idaho, and I am about to tweak the section on John Brown. Thanks and Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 01:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I'll second Auntieruth55's comments. There's a lot information here, but the prose quality needs to be improved considerably to satisfy A-class standards. I'd recommend a peer review/GAR before bringing it to ACR. Furthermore there are a lot of MOS problems. Notably lack of place of publication for the references and capitalization problems. All of this stuff can be worked through, but this is not the place, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose The criteria is there for a B-class article, but I feel that the material in the article could be expanded and that more could be said about Sidney Edgerton. I would concur with the move to look into a PR/GAR route, but I also suggest looking for additional information on the man; the article as it is is kind of thin. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comments: Just a few comments from me.
  • The Early life section should probably mention the specific date of birth even though it is already mentioned in the lead;
  • Is there a need for a picture of John Brown in this article?
  • Same as above for the image of Plummer;
  • The Inflation calculator link should be removed from References and cited in Notes (# 14) using {{cite web}};
  • The References section is very large, are all of the works specifically cited in the Notes? If not they should be moved to a Further reading section;
  • I think that the Governors ribbon template at the bottom of the article would look better if it were collapsed;
  • I think that the References section would look better if it were formatted with {{cite book}};
  • The titles in the References section need to be capitalised per Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Composition titles.

Anyway, that is it from me. Regarding the "opposes", have these been addressed, or do they remain? Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• they remain. Certainly the content has expanded, but the prose is still weak, and the article seems repetitive to me. The end of his life is completely glossed over. I would still oppose, based on these deficiencies. I'd question whether the prose would pass a GA nom. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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.

---

• Not promoted no consensus for promotion after being open for 28+ days -MBK₀₀₄ 21:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Red Tail Reborn

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it recently passed WP:GAC, but could use further refinement. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Commments
  • No dab links are reported to be in the article. Two image are reported to be in need of alt text, and one external link is reported to be suspicious, please check and advise.
    • WP:ALT done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I see no suspicious links with the tool at this time.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • More to follow... TomStar81 (Talk) 06:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • There are two dead external links in the article, these need to be found and fixed before I can support.
    • Although they show as dead in the tool, they are fine.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Can we maybe expand the intro to include two paragraphs? That would make the article look more professional, IMO.
    • done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I would move the images on the left down to the history and production section, as it is the images and the infobox are working to squish the text together, and it makes the article hard to read at smaller screen sizes. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    • images moved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support I'd feel better about the intro having two paragraphs, but otherwise this looks good to go. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll try to look at doing that this weekend.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I have rearranged the LEAD for two paragraphs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comments: Overall I think this article meets A class criteria. I have just a couple of comments/suggestions that I'd like a response to before supporting. These are as follows:
  • in the Story section the noun "black" is used (as in African American people). To be honest, I don't know what the WP policy is on this, so I just wanted to check if it is ok to use this term. I don' t have a problem with it, but just want to make sure it is not going to be an issue;
    • Switched all to African American.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the History and production section you use the abbrievation "WWII" and "Col." without having previously introduced them (i.e put them in brackets beside the full term);
    • Fixed (linked colonel).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • please consider if all the images are required (I won't oppose on this though, as images are a personal preference);
    • DVD covers are pretty standard. The other images are just to help the reader understand the subject. We could get by with less than three, but since we have them, I don't see why not.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Airings and DVD release section, the word "reaired" - should this be hyphenated as "re-aired"?
    • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • the Tuskegee Airmen template at the bottom might look better collapsed (just a suggestion, not a requirement for me to support).
    • If it were bigger I would collapse it. It looks O.K. to me at 1600 pixels wide. May be a bit long with narrower display settings, but I think it is tolerable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, that is it from me. Good work so far. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• All my concerns have been addressed. What is the status of this review, has anything been done to address Ruth's concerns below? — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

• Very interesting article but difficult to read, and its organization and flow are uneven. I remember reading another article on the project itself, and this one suffers from the same prose problems. There are some awkward prose moments, and you might want to make another run-through (or have someone do it for you).
  • The first paragraph of "story" is good, but the section falls apart after that.
    • Feel free to elaborate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
      • • See below.
  • In the second section, History and Production, you've got content that belongs in the first section.
    • Again, please elaborate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • There are quite a few glaring prose problems:
    • for example, "One of these veterans interviewed was WWII, Korean War and Vietnam War veteran Col. Charles McGee, whom White said had more combat flight hours than any American.
      • Resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The two sentences before that are very awkward as well.Did he interview 13 guys who live near Cleveland? Or did he interview 13 guys, some of whom lived near Cleveland? Or do 13 of the original Tuskegee Airmen come from Cleveland, but he interviewed T.A. regardless of where they came from....? Or something else.
      • I have tried to reword so that this is a non-issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
    • in the last section, for example, "The film by White was..." I think here you can just say the film. We're talking about White as the producer/grand pobah, and its unnecessary to say the film by White. Possibly White's film, but that makes White the focus, not the Airmen. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Rmed White.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

For example:

Among those that Cleveland filmmaker White interviewed to make the film were 13 of the Tuskegee airmen. Several of the Tuskegee Airmen were from the northeast Ohio region. I still don't understand if he interviewed Ohio Airmen, or this is just an extraneous bit of information. One of the veterans interviewed was Colonel Charles McGee, who had served in WWII, the Korean War and the Vietnam War and whom White said had more combat flight hours than any other American. (and....? so what. What did he say? Why is this important to include?) Colonel Charles McGee, who had served in WW2, KW, VW, and whom White said had more combat flight hours than any other America .... was he a TA? From hereThe film was shot in Billings, Montana. The film was produced to help increase awareness and elicit financial support for The Red Tail Project. The film was produced by Cleveland-based Hemlock Films, which is White's production company. It was underwritten by the Parker Hannifin Corporation. to here doesn't belong in this paragraph. Tell us more about the interviews in this paragraph. Then you can give us stuff on the production. this whole paragraph needs rewording The film was inspired while White was filming The Restorers, after a P-51C Mustang landed for refueling and White met Doug Rozendaal, the pilot of the Red Tail Project's Tuskegee Airmen plane. When White heard Don Hinz had been killed in a crash of that very same plane, he felt compelled to do a story focusing on it. Once he got involved in the project, a local PBS station committed to airing the final product, which was an early step in the successful development of the project. When researching the film he noticed a lack of resources about the Tuskegee Airmen and felt driven to fill the void.

White was filming The Restorers in XXXX, when a P-51C landed at the airport for refueling. What attracted him to the plane In conversation, Doug Rozendaal, the plane's pilot, told him that the well-known Don Hinz, a restorer and P51 affecionado,or something had been killed in a crash of that very same plane. White was inspired to tel the story of the plane, the Airmen, and Hinz. While researching the project, he realized that the Tuskegee Airmen story had not been told. Gradually, the story came together: the plane, the Airmen, and Don Hinz. An Ohio PBS station agreed to air the film.

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 09:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Kenneth Walker

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...

Renomination. Was nominated back in April by myself and another editor as part of an effort to improve the overall quality of Medal of Honor articles. I am the major contributor though. I believe that all issues have now been addressed.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • One dab link (to P-36);
    • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • One external link reports as dead (A War of Their Own: Bombers over the Southwest Pacific);
    • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Not all images have alt text (although its not a requirement - so if you wan't to add its up to you);
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The citation check tool reports no errors (no action required);
  • I've made some changes so please check you're happy with them and change if you are not; and
  • The first sentence in the Pacific campaign section seems awkward: "Walker was promoted to brigadier general on 17 June 1942 and transferred to the Southwest Pacific,[1] Walker flew to Australia in the company of Brigadier General Ennis Whitehead." Specifically repeating Walker's name;
    • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Other than that this is another excellent article in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • All my suggestions have been resolved so I'm happy to support. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comments: Looks very good to me, I made a couple of minor tweaks, so there are just a couple of suggestions from me:
  • there is some inconsistency in date format presentation, e.g. "July 17, 1898" (in Early life section) and "15 December 1917". Either style is fine, but it should be consistent throughout the article;
    • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Between the wars section, "No did he warm to the Curtiss P-36 Hawk fighter, especially after a near-fatal accident" - I think this is a typo. Should it be "Nor did he warm..."?
    • Corrected typo. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Papuan Campaign section, "...there were nowhere near enough aircraft in the Southwest Pacific to mount such a massive attack" - "nowhere near enough" sounds a little informal, perhaps just "there were not enough..."?
    • Not enough is not enough. I've reworded this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Papuan Campaign section, "Kenney's suggestion that bombers conduct attacks from low level with bombs with instantaneous fuses received a negative reception from Walker..." perhaps reword "with bombs with" to "using bombs with..."? AustralianRupert (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support: my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Question: It warms my heart to see that Kumioko used User:bahamut0013/ribbon workshop. However, why were the citations moved to the prose? I think they make more sense in the awards section. Also, a suggestion: instead of citing the same ref for each ribbon and badge, it would probably be easier and cleaner to add "Walker's awards and decorations include:" before the table and just cite the ref once there. bahamut0013^words_deeds 22:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • There were two reasons for the citations in the prose. The main one was because I felt that they made more sense in context. The other was that I was afraid that the awards section would be deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Changed to a single reference at the end. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - It looks good to me. After reading through it I don't see anything wrong. Excellent job. --Kumioko (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Its nothing to make me withhold be support but in line with bahamut0013's comments I wonder if we need to put the reference in every single cell of the ribbon display or just once at the beginning or end of the section. Either way is ok but I think its kinda cluttered. --Kumioko (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Changed to a single reference at the end. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Belated support. Notes added to the talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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.

---

• Not promoted - no consensus for promotion after being open for 28 days -MBK₀₀₄ 02:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Camp Chapman attack

Nominator(s):   Cs32en Talk to me 

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it might meet the relevant criteria. The article has been reviewed by MBK004 (talk · contribs). I'm unfamiliar with the review process, however. There are probably a number of ways that the article can be improved, and the review may help to find and pursue them. One problem (criteria #5) is that few, if any, images are available about the event itself.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Three dab links are present in the article, these need to be located and removed if at all possible. A number of your external links are flagged as suspicious, including a handful that are reported to be dead. The information cited to these links will need to be cited to alternate sources or outright removed. Almost all of the article's images are missing alt text, please add this to the article's images forthwith.
  • You've got tense issues in the article, some of it is written in past tense and other parts are written in the present. Pick a tense and stick with it all the way through the article. My recommendation is to go with past tense, for what should be obvious reasons.
  • There seem to be an awful lot of quotes in the article, while I understand that they are useful to the article's subject it may be beneficial to consider paraphrasing some of them to help reduce the overall number of quotes present.
  • Your citation style needs some uniformity, some citations are provided as "sentence (cite).", while others are provided as "sentence. (citation)"; Pick one of the two and stick with it for the duration of the article.
  • "The death offered a rare glimpse of a U.S.-Jordanian partnership that is rarely acknowledged publicly, yet seen by U.S. officials as highly important for their counterterrorism strategy." This keeps popping up in the article, I think it really only needs to appear once or twice. Trim the remaining appearances.
  • I would suggest putting the background section in front of the execution section so that some semblance of chronological order is presented; usually in these kinds of articles its backgrounds, incident, aftermath, closing notes. Just something to think about.
  • You've got a lot of header that hove only one or two small paragraphs following, perhaps you should consider merging some of the smaller section into larger sections. Case in point: Section "New Security Guidance" is only three lines long, a extremely short section and hardly worthy of a full header.
  • Try to lose the see also section, anything you have in it should be integrated into the article text wherever possible. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on assessing the article, and for pointing out deficiencies that need to be addressed!

I have had a look at the current nominations for A-Class, and most of the articles seem to have been accepted as Good Article before being nominated for A-Class. I think it may be better to first do a Good Article review, and to relist the article later on. If that is also the view of editors more experienced with the review process, I would withdraw the nomination and the nominate for Good Article first.

On the issues that you mention, I'll adress them as follows:

1. Fixing dab links and external links.

Dab links and external links are fixed, added alt text for images.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

2. Using past tense in the entire article.

Changed to past tense in some instances. In a number of instances, the use of the present tense seems to be correct. I'll have a closer look at the the article with regard to this issue later on.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

3. Rephrasing verbatim quotes. This may be more difficult in the section on the reactions of various people, as the tone of the reaction is often as important as the information or the logical argument that is being made.

Took out or paraphrased a number of direct quotes.  Cs32en Talk to me  10:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

4. Changing citation style to "sentence.[citation]" Some footnote numbers need to be in the middle of sentences, because some sources are only being used for specific words, for example. The "sentence [cite]." style was most probably used by other editors who contributed to the article.

Citation style should be fixed now.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

5. The U.S.-Jordanian partnership get a bit too much weight in the current version of the article. Some of the content was added by another editor, and I didn't want to remove it to avoid WP:OWN issues.

Reduced and consolidated the information a bit. Maybe more needs to be done.  Cs32en Talk to me  10:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

6. I'm not sure whether the chronological order is necessarily the best one. I'd say the first question that needs to be answered is "What happened?", then "Why did it happen?" "How was the event interpreted in the larger context?" Another possibility would be to have the lead section, then a short section on the (physical) event itself, then the background, and then further information about the attacker, followed by the reactions to the event. I'll probably leave the structure for now, but this should be discussed further.

I actually think that the article should start with the event itself, because that helps the reader to understand how the background is related to it. Also, some readers might not be interested in the background and may just be looking for the plain facts.  Cs32en Talk to me  10:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

7. I made some of the section headers to indicate the appropriate place where further information should be put, both by others and by myself. Some sections grew larger as more information emerged, and branched into several sections, while others remained small. A the present time, the volume of additional new information is quite small, so it's a good time to merge some of these sections.

8. I agree that the "See also" section is unnecessary. In part, I thought the "See also" section is a regular section that would be regarded a as useful complement to the article itself, in part, it's also a WP:OWN issue.

  Cs32en Talk to me  19:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

More opinions on this particular question are welcome.  Cs32en Talk to me  10:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Section "Alleged link to Pakistani intelligence agency"

I'd like to draw your attention to the section "Alleged link to Pakistani intelligence agency". I have some thoughts about how to handle it, but I would very much welcome input from outside observers.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
• in the Execution of the attack section, a convert tag could be added to "three miles" to provide km equivalent;

 Done  Cs32en Talk to me  11:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• same as above for "50 feet" in the same section;

 Done  Cs32en Talk to me  11:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• there is some inconsistency in the way you treat the abbreviation U.S. Mostly you have "U.S.", but there is an example of "US" (without stops) in the Responsibility section ("a US drone"); in the Meeting at Camp Chapman section ("US administration"); in the Casualties section ("a US soldier"); in the Non-U.S. casualties section ("a US soldier"); Arrest and extradiction section "US authorities" and "US drone";

 Done  Cs32en Talk to me  11:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• the last part of the last sentence in the Non-U.S. casualties section appears to be uncited ("in part because of Jordanian human intelligence capabilities in certain limited areas and the large number of English speaking lower level GID personnel");

 Done  Cs32en Talk to me  11:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• the last sentence in the Political reactions and commentary section is uncited ("Several members of the United States Intelligence Community" sentence);

Not sure I added that sentence as a summary of the following subsections, similar to a lead paragraph. Could you comment again on whether this is OK or needs to be changed?   Cs32en Talk to me  11:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• the last sentence in the Expert and media commentary/Impact section is uncited (the unamed intelligence source sentence);

 Done  Cs32en Talk to me  11:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Citation # 129 (Eli Lake Washington Post article) is showing the full url chain, can this be embedded like the others?

 Done  Cs32en Talk to me  11:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting these issues! I've dealt with most of them now. Can you look again at the last sentence in the Political reactions and commentary section? I saw this as a summary of the subsequent subsections, but I'm not sure whether this is OK.  Cs32en Talk to me  11:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, yes I see what you mean. I think it should be ok, as the section below is well cited. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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.

---

• Not promoted - no consensus for promotion after being open for 28 days -MBK₀₀₄ 02:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Tim Cross

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. It's the first time I've written an article of this quality from scratch and it made GA without any difficulty so I'm hoping I can take it further. All feedback and any suggestions for improving the article are most welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with dab links or alt text. Two external links are reported as suspicious, please check and advise.
  • Its a good article, but it seems a little thin on the details. Could anything more be said about place of birth, parents, family (mother/father and back up the line and wife children and on down the line), service, combat action, awards, education, masters thesis, or anything else of this nature? As it stands now the article should clear A-class, but details for the article are always apreciated; as the saying goes, the more the merrier.
  • Also, Congrats on your article being single out for assessment chart honors :) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There's unlikely to be anything more available on his CBE, citations are not routinely published, and only the recommendations for awards prior to 1990 have presently been released to the public (info here). David Underdown (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. I've managed to find a little more information though, obviously, there's not much information on his career until he gets further up the ranks and he doesn't appear to have seen any combat action (besides being GOC in Iraq). As for the external links, Checklinks highlights two links but both work perfectly- that happens quite often with links to several news sites, including the BBC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You've got a dead external link that needs to be dealt with before I can support. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Which? I've just run the link checker above and get a few things labelled as redriects on the BBC website (which I understand is a quirk of the way the BBC website works), but nothing labelled as completely dead. David Underdown (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the same conclusion I reached. Excluding the perfect links, I get 3 "redirects" but, as David says, it's a quirk of the way news websites work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comment - something's wrong with the lead image proposrtion-wise... is it stretched one way? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what's wrong with it- it's how it appeared originally and I'm no good with fiddling with images. Any help would be appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  Did the original creator stretch it somehow? Either way, is there a better free image of him anywhere? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  I think it's just the way the picture was taken and no, I'm afraid there isn't. That was the only image of him I managed to find and I spent 3 weeks begging the author to release it under a free licence. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  Alright then, no problem. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Support - I don't see anything jumpin out. There are a couple references in the lede, which I seem to remember is typically frowned upon but other than that nothing major. --Kumioko (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: A couple of comments from me. Not much wrong with this article, really:
  • in the High command section please check this sentence "at the same time, he commanded the Combat". It begins with a lower case letter;
  • the emdashes in Early and personal life should be unspaced per WP:DASH (each of them have one space that should be removed);
  • the endash for the service years in the infobox should be unspaced;
  • I'm not sure if this has been explained or not, but is there any information on where he was born and who his parents were? — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I've fixed the format issues (I'm not used to em/endashes). I have spent considerable amounts of time trawling through Google and Google news but I'm afriad I've been unable to find any information on his parents/place of birth etc. Thank you very much for your time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
      • No worries, if its not available then that's fine. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Thank you again for your time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my comments have been addressed. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion A2 (comprehensiveness). Sorry to be the fly in the ointment, but I think at A-Class a biographical article should be as informative about its subject's views and opinions as about their curriculum vitae. I came away from the article feeling as though I knew what positions Tim Cross had held, but I barely knew the man himself. Given his key involvement in some of the most controversial military operations over recent decades I think this is a significant issue. Fortunately I don't think it's a difficult thing to address; there appear to be a number of good online sources that discuss his serious criticism of Donald Rumsfeld's policy for the Iraq War, his religious beliefs in relation to military service and his thoughts about humanitarian work in Kosovo. I'm sure more can be uncovered. I hope this isn't too discouraging - you've done a really excellent job on your first scratch-built article so far, but I don't think it's quite ready for A-Class yet. EyeSerene^talk 11:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Good job writing this. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. For now. I agree with Eve, above, re comprehensiveness and re the quality of the article so far. Cross's notability is based primarily upon his service in Iraq, and the article does not cover this, at least not in the detail. It moves from this sentence: "On 9 October 2004, he was appointed General Officer Commanding Theatre Troops, Iraq; commander of all British Army forces in the Iraq War" (which has some obvious prose flaws ) to his retirement in 2007. What happened in between? What happened in his tenure as commander of the British force in Iraq? What are the specifics of his critique of the operating plan? We need to find someone who knows pictures who can fix that picture of him. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Not promoted - no consensus for promotion after being open for 28 days -MBK₀₀₄ 00:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

John Babcock

Nominator(s): Cheers, CP

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has been certified as a good article for some time now and, now that he has died, I feel that all the resources have now surfaced for this article to meet the criteria. As Canada's final surviving veteran of World War I, he was not only an important historical figure for the country, but the final link to one of the largest military conflicts in human history. Cheers, CP 05:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with dab links or alt text. One external link is reported as suspicious, please check and advise.
  • More to follow. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the external link problem has been fixed now. Cheers, CP 16:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed.

• • "In doing so he lost his Canadian citizenship, as dual citizenships were not allowed at the time." Was this do to US laws, Canadian laws, or both?
  • "He still retained a Canadian Army pension that totaled $750..." Is that 750 by todays standards or yesterdays standards?
  • "Babcock was invited to the opening of a Pentagon exhibit on March 6, 2008, featuring photos of nine World War I veterans, but was unable to attend." Why was he unable to make it?
  • The infobox cites his rank as lance corpal but there is no explanation in the article as to how he was able to attain that rank. I assume it was based either on time served or on outstanding merit, but I would like to have this point clarified in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at every report from March 2008, and none of them give the exact reason that Babcock was unable to attend, not even the remarks made at the event itself. I would assume that it's the obvious (difficulty of someone of that age to travel across the country), but of course I can't speculate in the article.

I'll look at the rest of these later... the Lance Corporal item was just recently added to the infobox, so I'll have to take a careful look at that, but the other two should (hopefully) be quick fixes. Cheers, CP 04:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added some information on Babcock's rank... I don't think that was exactly what you were looking for, but I tried to combine all the Babcock-specific and general information about the rank that I could find in order to paint a more contextual picture. Again, my speculative guess would be that they promoted people to acting ranks to replace casualties from war, but I couldn't find anything to specifically state that. I'll take care of the other points shortly. Cheers, CP 17:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I think I've taken care of all the above mentioned points. Let me know what's next! Cheers, CP 22:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support One last little suggestion: if at all possible, see if you can find a Canadian lance corporal insignia to add to the infobox, it would be interesting to see what sort of rank patch he wore. Otherwise, I am happy with the changes, all my issues have been addressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that I missed this earlier today; I'll take a look for this shortly. Cheers, CP 01:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have a quick question if anyone wants to answer... I noticed that this has happened twice now, where the three short sentences about his death are cut off from the last paragraph. I feel that this makes it a bit choppier and breaks the flow, but I thought since two different people made the same edit, it'd make more sense to ask here than to just revert. Cheers, CP 01:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments.

• "but was reduced to the rank of private for neglect of duty." What did he neglect?
• Please clarify and expand his World War II service: this is barely covered at all, and it'd be nice if there were more on it.
• "In addition, the local Royal Canadian Legion has a collection of World War I items on display, including a roll call with Babcock's name on it." Please rephrase this to provide relevance to his 107th birthday, as that is what is talked about around this statement, or move it.

Please take a look at these. – Joe N 14:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the first comment, as noted above, I couldn't find much information on his rank... the source simply said that he was demoted for neglect of duty and offers no further details. I did find a copy of his military record linked on this site, but even they do not say more than "neglect of duty" (pgs. 11 and 12), so I'm not sure that anything else can be done on this one. I'll check out the other two once Wikipedia is acting less sluggish. Cheers, CP 04:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that I have addressed the other two points... there's not too much to say on his World War II service, but I have added some information to clarify why this is. Please let me know what else needs to be done. Cheers, CP 04:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That's better, but could you mention how he got into the army? Was he drafted, or did he volunteer in the hopes of being in the USAAC and then was required to stick around in the regular army? – Joe N 13:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into it today and find the answer to that if it's out there! Cheers, CP 15:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I looked into it and I couldn't find much to answer your question. According to this obituary, he voluntarily entered the U.S. Army, but it doesn't give a specific date as to when that happened. Babcock came to the States in 1921, so unless he waited for five years to join the forces, he probably wouldn't have been gunning for the United States Army Air Corps, although he could have conceivably been gunning for the United States Army Air Service. In any case, this is the only source that really mentions his joining the U.S. Army in any detail and all it says is that "He emigrated to the United States in the 1920s, joined the U.S. Army and gave up his Canadian citizenship". The Whig-Standard source says the following: ""I tried to go down and enlist," he would later recall. "After all, I was a veteran and I thought they'd be glad to have my expertise. 'I tried to get into the flying service, but to my disappointment they turned me down, saying I was too old.'" So these two sources combine seem to suggest that:

1. He joined the U.S. Army on a volunteer basis in the early 1920s and
2. Joining any sort of Air Force was an afterthought of his trying to enlist for World War II, where he was denied.

I can include something like that in the article, but I'm not sure how much I'd be extrapolating stuff that isn't actual verifiable by the sources. Cheers, CP 02:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Not promoted (closed by User:Sturmvogel 66) on 5 March 2010

John S. Loisel

Nominator(s): GregJackP (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel that it meets the criteria for an A-level article. (GregJackP (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

• Object the lead is too short. Secondly the references are repeated in full over and over, which I can fix easily YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll work on the lead & references tomorrow. Did you notice anything else I need to fix? Thanks for your help. (GregJackP (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

Given his achievements, as noted in the lead, is there more material on this fellow. There is certainly no shortage of books out there that catalogue the feats of prolific US soldiers. The article is quite short YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Short of doing original research, I'm not sure where else to look. I did a WorldCat search for him by name and units and pulled every book that mentioned him - most focus more on Dick Bong and the other major ace in his unit. There are also no articles to be found through either an EbscoHost, Proquest, HeritageQuest or Lexis searches. There just isn't that much more out there that I can find. (GregJackP (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC))

Struck object YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 06:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Article is currently ranked as B-class, and will therefore need MoS attention, if anyone is up to the task.
  • No problems reported with dab links. One external link is flagged, please check and advise. A handful of images lack alt text, please add this to the article forth with.
    • I couldn't determine which external link you are talking about - the toolbox didn't ID any with problems. Can you elaborate so I can fix it? I'll fix the alt text issues.Done. (GregJackP (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC))
      • This happens every now and again; the tool will detect a site at an inopportune moment. If you can not locate a funny link then it means everything is up and working, so disregard that concern.
  • Your lead is too short, please expand it to at least two paragraphs.
    • Will do. How does it look now?
      • Lead still needs work. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
        • How about now? (GregJackP (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC))
  • Moving with his family early in life could be taken as any time from his departure as a newborn at the hospital to the day before he graduated high school. Please give as a date for the move, at a minimum the year, so we can get some perspective on this.
    • I don't have any information on this, and can't find anything that has been published. I tried look for census data to at least narrow it down, but haven't had any luck there. Is this something that is required or just nice to have? Done. (GregJackP (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC))
      • Generally required at this level; as the higher up you go the hard the demands are for the article info, and this is the second highest rating offered on Wikipedia. If you'd like you can pull the ACR and file for a peer review instead for additional feedback on how the article could be improved so as to make this process somewhat easier. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Who were his parents? Did he have any siblings? What did his dad do for a living? Did he work somewhere before enlisting? Did he get a Bachelors/Masters/Doctorate before enlisting? There are no answers to these questions in the early life section, but I have a burning desire to know about this information, so please look into adding it.
    • I don't know who his parents were, and have names of two sisters - I'll add those. I do not believe he worked before joining - the bios I've referenced all indicate he went directly from high school to college, but there is nothing definitive. He obtained his Bachelors after WWII (noted in the article with cites) and his Masters on retirement from the USAF (in article with cites). Done.(GregJackP (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC))
  • Five kills makes a man an ace in the air arms, please note this in the article.
    • • Done. (GregJackP (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC))
  • Was he passed over for promotion to Brigadier General? The article doesn't say, but a man of such caliber would certainly be in a position for stars. See if you can find anything to this extent.
    • He did not attend the Air War College that I can tell, which is a prerequisite for promotion to flag rank.
  • The last two lines of the military service section have no source, please add a source for the material or remove it forthwith.
    • Will do. Done.(GregJackP (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC))
  • Expand the later life section, its rather thin at the moment.
    • Will do. Added additional information. (GregJackP (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC))
  • Kills 3-8 have no source in the table, please add a source for the information.
    • I meant for the cite in the column title 'Kills' to cover all of the kills, but will modify it to show it for each kill. Done (GregJackP (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC))
  • The entire awards and decorations section is uncited, see about correcting this please. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Will do. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC))
• As a side note Greg, I want to make you aware of that fact that it is generally not a good idea to cross out other people's comments/suggestions/objections as you address them. The best thing to do is ask the person who left said comments/suggestions/objections to return to them and cross them out as he or she sees fit. That is not so much an issue for me, but others will take offense to having their comments crossed out by you and that can lead to charges of uncivil behavior. This is not meant to be a warning or anything, its just and FYI. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh. Did not mean to be discourteous or uncivil - I have removed the strike-outs. (GregJackP (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC))
• Comments: Support
• per the WP:MOS I think dates should not be wikilinked unless absolutely necessary to understanding some - you have linked a couple in Notes 3 & 4. As they are just access dates and are currently redlinks, I suggest unlinking them;
  • • I'm not sure how to do that - both of those notes were generated using the {{Cite Census}} template. Any help would be appreciated. (GregJackP (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC))
      • Hmm, yes that is perplexing...I wonder if the template can be edited to stop it autolinking? Might be too hard, not sure. I've left a message on the template's talkpage, requesting if anyone knows how to fix this. Hopefully someone will offer assistance. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)  Done
  • the capitalisation of military ranks is incorrect: where they are being used as part of a title they should be capitalised, but elsewhere they should be lower case, e.g. "Lieutenant Colonel Loisel" is correct, but "Loisel was a Lieutenant Colonel" is not and should be changed to "Loisel was a lieutenant colonel".
    • OK, will do. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC))
  • can you provide a citation for the claim that his son and brothers preceded Loisel in death (see Later life section)?
    • The Dallas Morning News obit stated that he was survived by his wife, daughters and two sisters, and that his son preceded him in death. Done. Moved cite. (GregJackP (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC))
  • this sentence seems a little terse (in Later life section) and could possibly be tweaked for flow: " Loisel was married to Rachel (Hultman) Loisel, had a son (John S. Loisel, Jr.) and a daughter (Susan Bryan)."
    • Will do. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

Just a few things you might like to consider. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I've struck my issues that have been dealt with. I have a couple more, though, sorry:
  • The last sentence in the first paragraph of the Military career section needs a citation (begins "Loisel was then assigned as cadre...");
    • Will do. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC))
  • Last sentence in the second paragraph of the Military career section needs a citation (begins "In August 1944...")
    • Will do. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC))
  • Most of the links that are included in the External links section have already been linked in the Notes (citations), I suggest only including those in the External links section that have not been linked previously in a citation (i.e. remove Nebraska Aviation Hall of Fame, Acepilots.com, Adamsplanes.com, USAF Air University), otherwise you are overlinking them;
    • Will do. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC))
  • I think that there is a tense issue in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the Military career section (beginning "Flying a..."). I think "earning" should be "earned" in this case;
    • Will do. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC))
  • As per Yellowmonkey's comment, I'd probably like to see a bit more detail about the aerial victories. Is it possible to flesh out some details about the "kills" themselves? —
    • Will do. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• All of my comments have been dealt with, so I've add my support. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
• Another drive by from me only:
  • Minor point, but I don't believe anything is added to the article by the inclusion of the squadron logos for all the squadrons he served in. IMO they are really only decorative and probably should be removed or included in a less obtrusive manner. Not sure if that is a requirement of an ACR or the MOS though.
    • OK, I'll look at that - I would like to include them if possible, but will see if I can do it less obtrusively. (GregJackP (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

Anotherclown (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but maybe include them as thumbnails in the infobox next to 'commands held'? Not sure what the MOS says about that, I'm just thinking out loud (which can be dangerous in wikiland). Anotherclown (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Will do. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

Support - looks good. Anotherclown (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

To everyone: I really appreciate the help on making this a better article. Thanks, (GregJackP (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

• Support.

• "He relinquished command on April 18, 1946 and returned to the States" Please rephrase to remove the colloquialism of "the States."

• Will do. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

• Is the See Also section really needed? If you can find a place to, it'd be nice to integrate those two links into the text.

• OK, I'll look at that. Removed section. (GregJackP (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

Just fix these two and it'll be good. Good job. – Joe N 23:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - sorry, but I just do not believe this article is quite comprehensive enough for an A-Class article. I think it leaves to many gaps about this man's life, and the reader is still left with some unanswered questions. I think this perhaps should have gone to Good article nominations first. My suggestions for improvement are:

• The "Early life" section is quite good. However, the phrase "worked as a "Commercial Traveler" (i.e. salesman)" does not sit well with me with the "(i.e. salesman)" trailing. Perhaps just a wikilink of "Commercial Traveler" to Sales#Sales agents or some such?

*Will do. I had to look up Commercial Traveler and thought that the 'i.e.' was appropriate to explain that, but I can change it. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

• "he was initially assigned as an instructor" - what kind of instructor? I presume flight, but this needs to be clarified.

• Will do. I believe it was as a flight instructor, but I'll check and update. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

• It needs to be clarified that the article is referring to the Second World War in the "Military career" section.

• Most of the material is the WWII period, but it also covers some Korean War info. I'll expand it some. (GregJackP (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

• I know that the information in that section covers more than just the Second World War. However, what I am saying is that it needs to be clarified that it is talking about the Second World War. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Will do. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC))

• There is quite a bit of repetition of "assigned" in rather close proximity in the first paragraph of the "Military career" section that should be reduced.

• Will do. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

• This is where comprehensiveness and unanswered questions come into it:
  • There is no detail or mention on what missions Loisel took part in or what his duties were, in both the Second World War and Korean War.

• Will attempt to find out more and expand. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

• • It is mentioned that he was awarded the Silver Star, but nothing on why.

• The Silver Star was generally awarded to an ace (see Silver Star, I'll see if I can find something specific. (GregJackP (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC))
• I have requested a copy of the award citation from the military personnel center, but it may take several weeks to get here. (GregJackP (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

• • I really think the information on his aerial victories should be expanded upon in the prose and the table be removed.

• I would like to hear more on this - several articles on aces have the information presented the same way. I'll look at other A-class articles that are on fighter pilots and try to follow those as an example. (GregJackP (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

• I must admit, there are very few articles on aces I have seen that present the victories in a table format and none have been at the A-Class level. John Lloyd Waddy, Max-Hellmuth Ostermann and Cedric Howell are all examples of A-Class or higher articles on flying aces. Regardless of the table, his victories really do need to be expanded upon in the prose. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Will do. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC))

Would it be possible to merge the section on his aerial victories into the section on World War Two, rather than having it as a seperate section (as it is currently)? As it currently stands it seems unchronlogical and, IMO, almost counter-intuitive. Anotherclown (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• • It also isn't really explained how he had been in combat than any other American fighter pilot. Did he have more the most flight time on combat missions, or was it that he was posted to the Pacific for three years?

• It was the amount of calendar time that he spent in the PTO flying combat missions, I'll clarify in the article. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

• There is too much repetition of Loisel's name in close proximity, which should be reduced.

• Will do. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

• In the "Later life" section, it should be commas either side of his children's names, not brackets. Same with his sisters.

• Will do. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

• When did he and his wife marry?

• Will do. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

• Are the unit icons for the commands he held really necessary in the infobox? THey just come off as image cruft.

• It was at the suggestion of another reviewer - I'm open to the best way to present them. (GregJackP (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

• IMHO, I do not think they really add much to the article at all and there is very little use in having them. Just my thoughts, though. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I'll remove them. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC))

• I think the relevant information in the "Awards and decorations" should be expanded upon in the prose and the section removed. His decorations such as the Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross and Air Medal should be introduced in the prose with how and when he was awarded them, and the same for these listed in the "Other honors" section. Overall, to me this list just comes off as a heap of image and list cruft, with information that should be covered in the prose. If one wants to know more about the decoration, such as the ribbon design, they will click on the link.

• I would like to hear more on this - several articles on aces have the information presented the same way. I'll look at other A-class articles that are on fighter pilots and try to follow those as an example. (GregJackP (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

• Basically the same reply above regarding victory tables; I have not seen an A-Class or higher level article on an ace with a list of medals and ribbons. Again, regardless of this, the awards also really need to be expaned upon in the prose. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Max-Hellmuth Ostermann has his awards listed in a separate section. I would like to keep this, but I'll do whatever it takes to move this forward. (GregJackP (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC))

• There is inconsistency in the presentation of access dates.

• I don't understand this comment. (GregJackP (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

• Okay, I'll fix this one up for you as it is probably the easiest way for you to understand and me explain. :) Basically, as you would know, when one uses an internet citation we add the date we accessed the site. It is always best to present the access dates in the same format. For example: either presenting them as "14 February 2010", "February 14, 2010" or "2010-02-14". In this case, most were uniform but tehre was one presented in a differing format. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Doh - now I feel stupid :) As soon as you explained it, it made sense. I'll check that from here on out. Thanks. (GregJackP (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

Overall, this article is rather good and I'm sorry to oppose, but, as I said, I just do not believe it is quite comprehensive enough for A-Class as it currently stands. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note: My opposition on this article's elevation to A-Class still stands and I have posted additional comments on the author's talk page at their request. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

For convenience, I am listing the objections of Abraham, B.S. from my user page.

• Is it known where he attended school?

• Norfolk, Nebraska; Wayne State; Univ of Nebraska; Univ of North Texas; all mentioned in the article. (GregJackP (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC))

• In the first two sentences of the "World War II" section, it abruptly jumps from talking about him being a flight instructor to being sent to the Philippines. This needs to be introduced better, with information on why he was being sent to the Philippines. It also still needs to be clarified that this is talking about the Second World War; the heading is not enough.

• Will do. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC))

• "he shot down five Japanese fighters within his first two months" - it should be clarified whether this is refering to his first two months with the squadron, or in New Guinea.

• Will do. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC))

• Is it known why he returned to the US in August 1944?

• I'll find out - I believe it was due to the length of time, his achievement as a double ace (most were pulled for war bond tours). (GregJackP (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC))

• "He had, by the age of 25, become a lieutenant colonel, a fighter group commander, earned the Silver Star, his assignment to the PTO for over three years was longer than any other American fighter pilot served in combat, and he flew more than 875 hours in combat." - this sentence reads awkwardly and has some gramatical issues, so could do with a re-write.

• Will do. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC))

• Are the three mentioned aces the ones that scored higher than Loisel? If so, this should be clarified.

• Yes, all three had more kills. I will clarify. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC))

• "to earn his bachelor's degree in physics (in 1949)" - having the year of 1949 in brackets is awkward and somewhat random. Was that the year he graduated with his degree? If so, it could be introduced somewhat along the lines of "to earn his bachelor's degree in physics; he graduated in 1949."

• Will do. Done. (GregJackP (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC))

• When was he CO of the 63rd Fighter Squadron?

• I'll find out. Done.(GregJackP (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC))

• Loisel's service in Korea could do with some extra details.

• I'll see what I can find. (GregJackP (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC))

• The "Post-Korea Career" really is to short to warrant its own section. I would advise integrating it with the information in the "Korea" section to form a "Korea and beyond" or "Korea and later career" section.

• I'll either expand or merge. (GregJackP (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC))

• The "Aerial victories" section should not be a separate section on its own, but should be appropiately intrgrated in the "World War II" section.

• Will do. (GregJackP (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC))

• Again, still not fussed on the list of honours and awards. The section you referred to in Max-Hellmuth Ostermann I think is quite different. First, it does not have images of ribbons nor is it presented just as a list. This section only mentions decorations, not service or campaign medals, and also has more information. I really do not think this section adds very little value to the Loisel article, but I think the worst things is that, in this list, the only decoration in it that is mentioned in the prose is his Silver Star. His Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Crosses and Air Medals should all be covered in the prose with information on why Loisel was awared these docorations. The must be something out there on at least a few of these.

• I have requested information on these from the National Military Personnel Center - if it was not destroyed in the 1973 fire. I have checked all the books listed in WorldCat, I've searched EbscoHost, JSTOR, HeritageQuest, ProQuest, and other scholarly databases without success for information on Loisel. Except for the military bios, there are no details, and the bios just summarize the awards. I'll remove the images. Done and removed the service awards. (GregJackP (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC))

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Not promoted Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Joachim Helbig

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel it may be close. Please let me know how to improve this article further. Comments, suggestions are appreciated. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with alt text, dab links, or external links. Well Done!
  • "Joachim Helbig was born on 10 September 1915 in the village of Börln, which is now a part of Dahlen, Saxony." What was this back in the day?

I expanded this a little. I think it is clearer now. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• • "...a Polish reconnaissance machine." THis brings to mind images from the novel War of the worlds, although I am certain he was not shooting three legged walkers. Could you be more specific as to the nature of the machine?

That's funny, you're right. I replaced machine with aircraft. Unfortunately the type is not specified in any of my sources. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Was he riding the motorcycle, or was he in the vehicle struck by the motorcycle? The article doesn't say, but I would like that clarified.

Sorry, my sources just state that he was injured in a motocycle accident. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• • "In October 1939, he participated in a number of missions against British shipping in the North Sea and was awarded the Iron Cross 2nd class." There is a lot of potential to expand on this part of the paragraph, as most people are only aware of the role the U-boats played in the battle of the Atlantic to stop allied shipping. I think you could easily get another paragraph out of the background behind the airstrikes and what importance such raids held for the Germans in the war. See if you can get a little more information in here on this angle, or perhaps link to another article that provides this context so we can better understand what kind of missions he was on.
  • The way the article is current phrased makes it seem as though he was award for getting his aircraft shot up and three of his four man crew wounded; if anything, I suspect that would lead to a court martial. See if you can clarify that information in the last paragraph of the Invasion of Poland section.
  • From a German perspective, the allied invasion of France could be interpreted any number of ways. Could narrow down the date of his promotion to colonel more precisely (ie "during operation overlord", "during the drive on paris", "during the med landings", etc) TomStar81 (Talk) 10:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, I expanded this a little MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support A-class, but do see if you can find anything to tighten up the suggested points. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Comments

• Links are needed for the British Mediterranean Fleet, Allies and Lehrgeschwader 1 in the lead.

doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Translations of German terms should be capitalized if they're proper nouns. Kampfgeschwader is better translated as Bomber Wing and Lehrgeschwader as Demonstration

doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• When did he get his commission?
• Which exact unit was Helbig in in September 1939? Why was he awarded the EKII?
• When did he transfer to 4./LG 1? Fix the dab for LG 1. Don't overlink LG 1
• What's a Zerstörergeschwader and a Jagdgeschwader?

doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Helbig was the only survivor of 4./LG 1 on 15 August?

Helbig and his crew, the remaining memebers of 4th squadron did not MisterBee1966 (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• How did Schlund contribute to the success of other missions?

doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Combine these two sentences On 11 May 1942, at about 6 PM Hauptmann Helbig took of from Heraklion with seven aircraft of I. Gruppe/LG 1. Together with the experienced veterans Oberleutnant Iro Ilk, Oberleutnant Backhaus, Leutnant Gerhard Brenner and Oberfeldwebel Otto Leupert. and this sentence needs to be added to the paragraph describing the attack. Ships are rarely destroyed; they sink, capsize, explode, etc. What happened to Kipling?
• Capitalize allied

doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• General der Kampflieger is best translated as Commander of Bombers

doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• What did Helbig and LG 1 do between June and September '44. When was he wounded? What was this small battle group called? What did it do?
• How could he escape from Czechoslovakia before the war ended? Do you mean that he flew out of there before the end of the war? And when did he arrive there?

doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Did Helbig ever marry or have have kids?

don't know! My sources say nothing about his private life MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned that no effort has been made to use the 2 volume LG 1 history by Peter Taghon, ISBN 3-925480-88-9 and 3-925480-85-4, to resolve some of these issues regarding LG 1's activities in '44-45. And exactly what unit Helbig was assigned to in September 1939. And the almost total lack of personal information, to include when Helbig got his commission, does not meet the standard of reasonably complete at this level and for this period. One or the other might be acceptable since this isn't a FAC, but both together do not incline me to support a promotion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I did consult Peter Taghon books (note they are two 1936 to 1942 and 1942 to 1945) of LG 1. Interestingly Joachim Helbig is not mentioned much in the early years and not at all with respect to the Polish campaign. I will verify again how much additional information can be extracted for 1944. Both books render no information on his personal life. So be it MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that you had access to the Taghon books, but I'm surprised that it didn't have more on Helbig considering he became their commander later. I'd still like to know what unit he was actually with in September '39 as Kampfaufklärungs could be the Stab (Staff) aircraft at Gruppe or Geschwader level or a long-range reconnaissance Staffel. I think that there was one in LG 2 and independent Staffeln.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• On hold I have ordered some more material that I hope allows me to address some of the comments addressed above. Please keep the review open until I have scanned the material. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Be aware that the maximum amount of time that ACRs are allowed to stay open is now 28 days + a day or so at the discretion of the closing coordinator (see the ACR instructions). Luckily you have some margin to play with here. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments my additional sources arrived and unfortunately do not give more insight into the questions posed above. May I ask the reviewers revisit the article? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support yes, it is A class. Before you take it further, it should have loose screws tightened. ;) Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I have just noticed something that seems strange. It says Helbig shot down a Polish reconnaissance aircraft. I thought Helbig was flying a He 111 as its pilot. How could he have shot down an aircraft? Was it one of his gunners? Which in that case it would not be 'his kill'. Did his unit not participate in the Battle of Belgium? LG 1 flew several missions against Belgian ports. Dapi89 (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

He was an observer during the Polish campaign, not the pilot MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Are you sure the lock canal was destroyed? Dapi89 (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what the sources claim (Kurowski). MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have answered on your talk page. Dapi89 (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: What staffel/group did Helbig belong to? There were two I Gruppe's in LG 1 (I. (Z) and I. (K). LG 1. I(K) saw action over Belgium. Dapi89 (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I wrote:

After completing his training as an observer and aerial gunner in April 1937, he was posted with III. Gruppe (3rd Group) Kampfgeschwader (Bomber Wing) 152 "Hindenburg" in Schwerin. III./KG 152 "Hindenburg" became II. Group of Lehrgeschwader 1 (1st Demonstration Wing) on 1 November 1938

Is this not clear MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm affraid not. On the article it is listed he commanded I./LG 1. What does that mean? To me this means I Gruppe. Which first Group? There were two. I.(Kampf) and I. (Zerstorer). I am confused as to which unit he commanded. Dapi89 (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Point taken! It should be I.(Kampf)/LG 1 now fixed MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments.

• "On 23 January 1944 LG 1 sunk the HMS Janus with a Henschel Hs 293 glider bomb and again damages the Jervis severly for the loss of 11 aircraft." Tense switching, and please clarify the phrase about the loss of aircraft: were they lost with the Jervis, or shot down in the process of sinking the Jervis?
• "He was taken prisoner of war (POW) by the Americans and was taken to the Sennelager POW camp from which he escaped on 9 June." Please clarify how he was taken prisoner: shot down, gave himself up, etc., and how and why he escaped instead of waiting to be released with the end of the war.
• Can you do any elaborating on his life after the war? Sure it isn't as important, but one line on 30 years of life is quite a bit too little.

I understand the sourcing problems, but would really like to see improvement in the last comment. – Joe N 22:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: A tad unfair. Mr B has given all the sources and information on his personal life. He can't give what he doesn't have. This article is more military-related so I think the contents is fine. In actual fact, if the one line is all MrB has, I would remove the reference to his horse riding and personal altogether and just focus on his birthplace and training. Afterall, people are going to be more interested in the war record. I think this should be granted A-Class.Dapi89 (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• There are tons of articles out there that cannot satisfy the completeness requirement of even GA-class for lack of available sources. I know this all too well; I've written a number of them. It would be really nice to be able to get them upgraded, but it will never happen unless I dig into archival information and then publish a book so as to satisfy WP:V. MisterBee has, IMO, hit the limits of the available information unless he can access issues of Jägerblatt or something similar. And private life aside there are a number of unanswered questions that I and a few others have posed above that have not been answered regarding his military career and activities. Enough so that I cannot support this as an A-class article in terms of completeness.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• comment on Helbig's personal life I am not in the position to address his personal life! The sources Berger, Kurowski and Schumann are the only sources I know of that portray Helbig as a person. Williamson is a plagiarism of the latter. Peter Taghon, author of the Lehrgeschwader 1 chronicles, mentions a Helbig collection that Helbig himself had started to put together with the intentions to publish his own book. This work has never been published (to my knowledge). Personally, I think that Schumann's article (Helbig is only one of many KC recipients in that book) is the historically most sound data point available. Kurowski basically tells the same story, filling many pages with anecdotal stuff that seems like fiction. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Withdrawn at nominator's request -'MBK₀₀₄ 06:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Kapyong

Nominator(s): Anotherclown (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it is an important topic and meets most if not all of the criteria. I'm not sure of the protocol and currently have another article undergoing review at the moment and apologise in advance if this offends anyone. That said I have used the comments from First Battle of Maryang San to improve this article so hopefully the points raised during that ACR should have already been taken care of. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support: looks look very good to me. The article is well written, referenced and illustrated with appropriate images. Alt text is present and ext links all check out. I have a couple of comments:
  • There is one dab link (Vanguard), however, that one might not be able to be solved just looking at it.  Done
    • Looks like you fixed this one by creating a new page with (disambig) after it Vanguard (disambiguation). Makes sense to me. Evidentally some IP didn't agree and reverted it. Not really sure why as your solution makes sense to me. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Hey mate, yeah was doing it as you wrote your review. Sorry to waste your time. Anotherclown (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I found a few stylised apostrophes, which should be straight apostrophes under the MOS. I fixed a few, but you might like to see if you can find any others.  Done
    • Have done this now but it was painful - more than 100 O'Neills and O'Dowds! Anotherclown (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm a little concerned about the images of the destroyed Cromwell and the C-119 Boxcar, which have no author or date information, the rest of the images, however, seem fine.  Done— AustralianRupert (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I have replaced the dodgy picture of the C-119 and fixed the Cromwell author and date info. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I missed this one before. Using the ref error checker tool, indicates that there are a few citations that could be consolidated. This tool can be added to your edit page by going to My Preferences ==> Gadgets ==> Reftools. It will then appear as an icon at the top of the page when you click Edit this page. It will be the icon with {{cite}} on it. If you choose the Error check button, and search for "References with the same content", it will show you if there are any citations that can be consolidated. Examples I have are: Breen 1992, p. 12; Breen 1994, p. 93, Horner 2008, p. 68 and 70, Butler, Argent and Shelton 2002, p. 103; O'Neill 1985, p. 132; Johnston 2003, p. 97; O'Neill 1985, p., 151.  Done — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, you learn something everyday. Pretty sure I have got all of these now. Anotherclown (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you've got them all now. Good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello all. I am going overseas on work for the next 6 months and will have very limited internet connectivity during this time. Consequently I will be withdrawing Battle of Kapyong from ACR. When I put the article up for ACR I was perhaps a little ambitious in expecting that it would be able to complete the process before I was due to leave, but it seems that there is less interest in the topic than I expected. My apologies for wasting everyone's time, and thank you all for those who have taken the time to review and to provide suggestions and contributions to the article (especially Jim101 and AustralianRupert). I look forward to picking up where I left off when I return. Cheers lads. Anotherclown (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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 Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

45th Infantry Division (United States)

First nomination
Second nomination

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

This article failed two ACRs in 2009 and 2010 due primarily to issues with sourcing, when I was a much younger editor. Since then, I have completely reformatted the sources, eliminated almost all of the online refs, rewritten most of the prose, diversified references and basically redone the whole thing with my greater WP experience. It's ready for round three. —Ed!^(talk) 21:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment The initial 'Origins' paragraph does not cover the 45th Division at all, and needs to be removed; maybe broken up between the State ARNGs, but certainly doesn't belong here. Also same thing for the first four-line paragraph on the Korean War: it doesn't talk about this division. If I may be honest, this is is a bit of a weak consistent thread in your writing: you don't stick to the unit/formation you're actually writing about. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I heartily disagree. It had been your comments in the past two ACRs that the article lacked context and needed more from unit histories. All of the unit resources I consulted, including what was suggested to me, point strongly to the division's origins as state militias with a lot of detail. Lineage-wise, the division draws at least some of its ancestry from the militia units which saw activations in so many 19th Century conflicts. As to the second part, it goes to explain the unpreparedness of the U.S. Army in general for the Korean conflict and why a National Guard unit was drawn in to begin with. As with many of my articles, I think this adds clarity without forcing the reader to find contect by clicking elsewhere. —Ed!^(talk) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Per below, I've parsed down this paragraph and merged it into the following one. —Ed!^(talk) 17:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, but this misses the point. This is an article on the Division; not the constituent regiments, or the State ARNGs. The history of the division begins only on 19 October 1920, after the first section. The material in the first 'origins' section simply does not belong here; it belongs in other articles. What we need here is a sketch about division level formations and maybe the expansion of the U.S. Army and the reasons why more division level formations were created. As it is this article simply replicates material that should be in the State ARNG or regimental pages. More space should be freed up to discuss the unique historical circumstances dealing with *this* level of the chain of command, at the division level, not the lower level regiments and other units. Whether you agree or disagree, is this objection clear? Have I made myself clear in what I am saying? Kind regards and congrats on all the other progress you've made with this article; I don't want to tangle my objections to the way this is at the moment with my personal regard for all the work you've done here. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd also want to see an expansion of the 1953-68 section; apart from the bare facts of the ROAD reorganisation, you've actually said very little. Historical regimental continuity? Mobilisation assignments? Training exercises? OK ARNG/other state ARNG political fights? None of this is reflected here. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been looking around for a few days and haven't found any Cold War-era resources about the division, or the Oklahoma National Guard. I could add in some things about the National Guard challenges overall in that era, but this would go back to your first point. —Ed!^(talk) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems trips to the archives will be required. Have you at least contacted the OK ARNG history office to check whether there are additional easily available resources? Buckshot06 (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Took another look around and contacted them. There is nothing in terms of reliable sources on that era that I could find to add. —Ed!^(talk) 11:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments: I've done some copyediting on this this evening. These are my comments:
  • "federally recognized" --> I wonder if this needs explaining, perhaps in a footnote?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • is this right? "In August 1940, the 45th Infantry Division took part in the Louisiana Maneuvers, the largest peacetime exercises in U.S. military history". The Wiki article for the Louisiana Maneuvers states that it was in 1941.
    • Yeah, that was a typo on my part. Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "The 82nd paratroopers, conducting the first combat jump of the war". Do you mean "their first combat jump"?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • this might need to be reworded: "German forces pushed back, the division advanced, its main objective was to capture airfields at..."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • this seems a little awkward: "forts Kaiser Wilhelm II designed" (was it one or more forts, and was it/were they named "Kaiser Wilhelm II"?)
    • Reworded. —Ed!^(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • inconsistent capitalisation: Active duty v. active duty
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "antiaircraft" --> should this be "anti-aircraft"?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • not sure about this: "Some of the victims apparently had only died hours before the 45th Division entered the camp and lay where they had died in states of decomposition that overwhelmed the soldiers' senses". (My issue is with the word "decomposition". If the victims died only hours before the unit arrived, I don't think decomposition would have started).
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • inconsistent: "U.S. " and "US";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I couldn't quite put my finger on it, but in places the prose seemed to lack flow and seemed more like just a collection of facts. For instance the last part of the second paragraph of the Sicily section. I've had a go at trying to fix this, but I don't think that I was wholely successful. Would you mind making a run through and seeing what you can do? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I've been having problems trying to get the level of detail right in some areas, while keeping the statistics still a prominent part of the narrative since they're the best documented details. Is there anywhere else in the article that stands out to you? —Ed!^(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• Your changes look good. Cheers. I've taken another run through and made a few more tweaks. Please check that you are happy with my changes. I have the following additional comments:
  • repetition: "On 19 October 1920, the Oklahoma State militia was organized as the 45th Infantry Division of the Oklahoma Army National Guard, and organized with troops from Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.[11] The division was organized" (a number of "organized") - perhaps one can be reworded?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "After this, division was allocated to drive towards Messina, being ordered by Patton to cover the distance as quickly as possible..." and then "On 1 August, the division was withdrawn..." (Did they make it to Messina before being withdrawn?)
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "The 40th Infantry Division of the California Army National Guard would soon be deployed to Korea as well." This seemed just tacked on, so I had a go at working it into the paragraph. I'm not sure if I was completely successful, though. Would you mind taking a look ? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 18:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "as part of Secretary Robert McNamara's downsizing of the Guard"... this appears in the lead, but not in the body (specifically the mention of McNamara);
    • Reworded to cover what was cited. —Ed!^(talk) 18:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "the 45th Infantry Brigade which inherited the division's lineage and honors, the 45th Field Artillery Group (today's 45th Fires Brigade) and the 90th Troop Command, were activated..." this appears in the lead, but not in the body of the article (specifically the arty, troop command, etc). AustralianRupert (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Removed until it is sourced. —Ed!^(talk) 18:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
      • This has been added back in with citations, which is fine, however, I think a couple of tweaks are needed now. Firstly, the information should be added to the body of the article (currently it is just in the lead), and secondly the sentence needs to be reworked as in its current form it is very awkward. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 11:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I see the following problems (all of which can be corrected):

1. I concur with Buckshot06 - the initial paragraph does not deal with the division.

1. Reduced the paragraph and merged it into the next one. —Ed!^(talk) 17:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

1. The last paragraph of Origins needs clarification. Both the 157th and 158th regiments were never part of the 36th ID, but the wording of the paragraph leads one to believe that they were.

1. Done. —Ed!^(talk) 17:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Other than those two problems, the rest of the article is great. Much better than before. GregJackP Boomer! 03:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Support

• Personally, I found the first para useful context, but I tend to prefer longer context intros than some, so might well be in the minority.
  • Me too, apparently. —Ed!^(talk) 17:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• "many of its members were adept with weapons and outdoor skills" - can you be adept with an outdoor skill? (the verb doesn't seem right to me)
  • As in, they were used to a more rugged outdoor lifestyle that made transitioning into a combat unit easier for them. —Ed!^(talk) 17:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
    • "many of its members were outdoors-men and adept with weapons"? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• "designed by Carnegie, Oklahoma native, Woody Big Bow" - is Carnegie a place? (I thought it was a name the first time I read this, so might be worth playing with the text a little)
  • • • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Reworked. —Ed!^(talk) 17:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• "was federalized into the active force" - "federalized" won't be a familiar verb to many readers. Does it mean called up/mobilised into full time service?
  • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 17:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• "Though the 45th remained de facto segregated in 1950" - I'm assuming it was segregated as a white unit? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Origin

Stating that discussion of the early militia in the original four states is not discussion of the division, is to me like stating that discussion of hydrogen and oxygen is not discussion of water. National Guard units are usually not the product of a start from scratch, but rather are usually the product of the combination, recombination, or elimination of existing elements. In this case, the territorial volunteer militia units are the direct antecedents of the regiments that would be combined to form the division--litterally the division's origin. I cannot conceive of an origin description that leaves them out. As is, only the militia of Oklahoma is directly mentioned, which in a discussion of today's brigade might be appropriate, as a discussion of the division this is an unwarranted lack of ballance.RTO Trainer (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree on this, though the editors above will need convincing. —Ed!^(talk) 21:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, what about a compromise, much more focused on the division itself; 'the initial regiments of the 45th Div were the Xth, Yth, Zth, and Ath Field Artillery. The Xth traces its origin to.., the Yth,traces its origin to.. the Zth... the Ath traces its origin to... etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Accompanied by proper links to the antecedent unit pages that would work. RTO Trainer (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course; that's implied by my statement. If I have read your contributions history correctly, you personally have done a fantastic job on expanding the various OK ARNG regimental pages. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I love my Thunderbirds. I'm about to offer a big expansion of the Korean War section, an actual history for the 279th, and I just came into posession of a source for Cold War to 1982, reorgs, SAD, and politics. RTO Trainer (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

1950 Reorganization

Currently, the article states: "During this time the division was also reorganized and as a part of this process the 157th Infantry was removed from the division's order of battle and replaced with the 279th Infantry Regiment.[89]" The cite is Varhola's Fire and Ice, history of the Korean War. Either Varhola has this wrong, or the reference has been misunderstood (I don't have a copy of this book to check). The reorganization that replaced the 157th with the 279th occurred in 1946. This is supported by the Lineage and Honors of each regiment, reproduced on the respective regiments' pages: 157th & 279th. In addition there is no reorganization listed in the 45th Brigade's lineage and honors in 1950.RTO Trainer (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll look for a source and fix this. —Ed!^(talk) 21:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Found a reference and fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Federalized

Perhaps the answer to this is a new article, or a new section on the National Guard of the United States page that can be referred to--would be useful to others. The Guard is unique in it's many duty statuses. RTO Trainer (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I would also agree an article on federalizing national guard units into federal service would be helpful. I'm personally not knowledgeable in the sources that would make a good article for this. —Ed!^(talk) 21:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

See if this seems useful to you: National Guard Active Duty Character. Suggestions for a better title would be welcome.RTO Trainer (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've created Federalization of the National Guard to that section. It should be used every time federalized National Guard units are mentioned. —Ed!^(talk) 11:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Italy Curent statement: "One of the first National Guard units activated for the war, the 45th fought in the 1943 Italian Campaign, seeing intense fighting during the invasion of Sicily and subsequent attack on Salerno." Fighting in Italy covered 4 official campaigns. Perhaps the plural should be used in the article.RTO Trainer (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Italian Campaign (World War II) says: "The Italian Campaign of World War II was the name of Allied operations in and around Italy, from 1943 to the end of the war in Europe." - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Then that needs a citation. To the best of my knowledge, that's not true. And I can produce citations for the official list of named campaigns.RTO Trainer (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the way it's worded now should fix the problem. —Ed!^(talk) 15:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the US Army divides the fighting in Italy into six campaigns: Sicily, Naples-Foggia, Anzio, Rome-Arno, Northern Apennines, and Po Valley. The 45th only fought in the first four. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I spent a while working on just the first two paragraphs, see if that works for you. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Much improved, thank you for your help. —Ed!^(talk) 21:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Continuing.
• So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at 45th_Infantry_Division_(United_States)#Allegations of war crimes. These are my edits. (The toolserver may need a few days before my recent edits show up.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Continuing.
• "advanced training": advance training? - Dank (push to talk) 00:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No dab links [9] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [10] (no action required).
  • Some of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it for consistency [11] (suggestion only - not an ACR criteria).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Most of the images are PD or licenced and seem appropriate for article.
    • File:Middleton.Troy.ThreeStars.jpg lacks a fair use rational for this article
      • Removed the image. —Ed!^(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Language here seems a little off (to me at least): "...the 45th Infantry Division accrued over 25,000 battle casualties...", perhaps consider "...the 45th Infantry Division sustained' over 25,000 battle casualties..." ("accrued" doesn't sound right, almost sounds like its a desirable statistic)(suggestion only).
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "These militias would eventually organize into most of the National Guard units which would make up the 45th Infantry Division...", consider instead: "These militias eventually organized into most of the National Guard units which later made up the 45th Infantry Division..." (suggestion only)
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Is there a missing word here: "...and would earn combat participation credit during the Meuse-Argonne campaign..."? Specifically should it be: "...and would earn a combat participation credit during the Meuse-Argonne campaign..."?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "In 1937, the division's troops were once again called up to help manage a locust plague affecting Colorado..." had they been called up previously to manage a locust plague? Perhaps you mean something like: "In 1937, the division's troops were once again called up, this time to help manage a locust plague affecting Colorado..."?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Is there a missing word here: "The division had great difficulty moving across the rivers and through mountainous terrain, and the advance was slow...", consider: "The division had great difficulty moving across the rivers and through the mountainous terrain, and the advance was slow..."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Allied forces conducted a frontal assault on the Gustav Line stronghold at Monte Cassino, and VI Corps was assigned Operation Shingle, detached from the Army Group to land behind enemy lines at Anzio." When?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "The 45th Infantry Division was mostly stuck in its place...", or should it be: "The 45th Infantry Division was mostly stuck in place..."? (suggestion only)
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Missing word here: "but these plans were scrubbed before the division could depart due to the surrender of Japan, V-J Day...", consider "but these plans were scrubbed before the division could depart due to the surrender of Japan on V-J Day."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Redundant language here: "...these divisions were equipped with antiquated weaponry and they suffered from a shortage of anti-armor weapons...", consider instead: "...these divisions were equipped with antiquated weaponry and suffered from a shortage of anti-armor weapons..." (minor point - suggestion only)
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Missing word here: "Following its arrival, the division moved to the front line replace the 1st Cavalry Division...", consider: "Following its arrival, the division moved to the front line to replace the 1st Cavalry Division..."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This could be reworded: "...individual unit commanders made great pains to integrate...", consider "...individual unit commanders went to great lengths to integrate..." (suggestion only)
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • These sentences need to linked somehow with the language you use, because their proximity implies a relationship but the way they are written doesn't make it clear: "In the spring, the division launched Operation Counter, an effort to establish 11 patrol bases around Old Baldy Hill. The division defended the hill against a series of Chinese assaults from the Chinese 38th Army." This could be as simple as: "In the spring, the division launched Operation Counter, which was an effort to establish 11 patrol bases around Old Baldy Hill. The division then defended the hill against a series of Chinese assaults from the Chinese 38th Army."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This is repetitive: "...but most of the division was held back to hold a defensive line against the Chinese...", perhaps consider rewording?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This lacks context: "The ensuing Battle of Hill Eerie was one of a series of larger attacks by Chinese and North Korean forces which produced heavier fighting than the previous year had seen." Why? I assume it was because the Chinese were looking to gain political advantage at the Armistace talks or was there another reason?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Overall, this article is looking good to me but there a few issues with prose that need to be cleaned up / discussed.
    • Fixed everything you noted. —Ed!^(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Also have Buckshot's concerns been fully addressed (I can see changes have been made but are they sufficient)? I'm no expert on US Army units so I'm really not qualified to say either way. Anotherclown (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't know, he hasn't clarified. I'll query his talk page. —Ed!^(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Happy with these changes; however, noting Buckshot's recent comments above I'm putting my support on hold for now as it is beyond my area of knowledge. I'll check back in a few days. Anotherclown (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Not promoted - no consensus for promotion after being open for 28+ days -MBK₀₀₄ 03:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Yarmouk

Nominator(s): الله أكبرMohammad Adil

Prior nomination:Here

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... after having this article peer reviewed twice, and following all the suggestions and advices given by the reviewers i felt confident that it meets the requirements. Regards.... الله أكبرMohammad Adil 22:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with ambiguous links. One external links is reported as suspicious, please check and advise. A Number of your images are missing alt text, please add this to the article forthwith.
  • In the prelude section you have the following line:"After his overwhelming victories over the Persian and their allies in Caucasus and Armenia, Heraclius, in 627, launched a daring winter offensive against the Persians in Mesopotamia winning a decisive victory at the Battle of Nineveh thus threatening the Persian capital city of Ctesiphon." I suggest removing the word daring, that sounds link undo weight, and there is no cite specifically for the daring offensive.
  • The second paragraph in the prelude section has no sources, no references. This is unacceptable for an A-class article, please locate and a source or two for the information presented in the paragraph.
  • Throughout the article there are lists that give measurements in metric, however no corresponding standard measurement is given for the metric measurement. Can you fix this please.
  • How big is a substantial gap? A couple hundred? A few thousand? A mile or more? See about tightening that up if you can.
  • What does 'inviting to Islam' mean? Is that an invitation to convert, or just a welcome diplomatic exchange?
  • You have a citation needed tag in the Day 4 section that needs to be addressed.
  • In the Day 6 section there is no cite for the phase three part, please add one. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Done.....

alt text fixed, References provided, unit conversion formula added for meter to feet and km to miles.

As for the external link, its working fine, i opened it, i have further added a retrieved date with it.

As for how much gap was there, my personal opinion will carry no weight and modern historians avoided any specific figure, they just said "there was substantial gaps between the divisions."

My personal estimate is that there was around 500 meter gap between each of the four divisions.

Inviting to islam, means inviting for conversion to islam, it was their tradition of sending preaching embassies to courts, in most of the cases they will do both, negotiations and preachings.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you work a bit harder on your alt text? Its suppose to 'describe an image to a blind man reading the article;, and alt text like 'day 2 phase 1' don't really explain anything. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Done...

I hv added a detail description of the battle maps in the alt text, also added alt text in the infobox image.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 17:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I tend towards oppose because the article doesn't seem stable. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

why ? there isnt any edit war going on right now or in recent past.الله أكبرMohammad Adil 08:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• There are still some cites incorrectly placed before the punctuation YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There were 4, I have fixed them all. Any other issue ?الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Not promoted - no consensus for promotion after being open for 28+ days -MBK₀₀₄ 03:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Siege of Damascus (634)

Nominator(s): الله أكبرMohammad Adil

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... after having this article peer reviewed twice, and following all the suggestions and advices given by the reviewers i felt confident that it meets the requirements. Regards.... الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There are still hyphens instead of ndashes in the number ranges YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it. i previously thought it was applied only between dates.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 23:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with external links or alt text. You have a number of ambiguous links in the article, please locate these and if at all possible remove them.
  • Heraclius, in 612, managed to expel Persian from Anatolia, but was decisively defeated in 613 when he launched a major offensive in Syria against the Persians." That first Persian should be Persians or Persia, I think.
  • More to follow later (needed in RL right now). TomStar81 (Talk) 22:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed them they were 3.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 22:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Now here be the rest:
  • You've still got a number of ambigious links in the article, these still need to be located and removed if at all possible.
  • I can't think in terms of meters, neither for that matter can most from the United States, yet the picture caption in the First Byzantine Attack section lists the height only in meters. Can that be fixed? TomStar81 (Talk) 16:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Done...

I had removed the other dabs yesterday, now there isnt any, except for those redirect links of the article conquest of damascus.

I have added a unit conversion code.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support Though I would recommend remove the redirects as well, my major concerns have been addressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Object because of a need for copyediting, I pulled this from about a block of 7 lines

The Muslim forces laying siege to the city had been weakened by this withdrawing of men (9000 in total). First with the departure of Raafe's detachment and then the reinforcement of the Mobile Guard under Khalid [broken sentence]. At this point, if the Byzantine army attacked in strength against any Muslim corps guarding the gates, there would be a serious danger that they would break trough [sic] and so uplift [lift] the siege.

Unsuccessful in breaking the Muslim lines, Byzantines retreated back to the fortress. The wounded Thomas is said to have sworn to take [a] thousand eyes in return.

YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

how about this ....

The Muslim forces laying siege to the city had been weakened by this withdrawing of men (9000 in total), first with the departure of Raafe's detachment and then the reinforcement of the Mobile Guard under Khalid (inserted comma instead of full stop, broken sentence fixed). At this point, if the Byzantine army attacked in strength against any Muslim corps guarding the gates, there would be a serious danger that they would be successful in breaking the siege. (sic fixed)

Unsuccessful in breaking the Muslim lines, Byzantines retreated back to the fortress. The wounded Thomas is said to have sworn to take a thousand eyes in return. (this sentence probably need only an article i guess)

English isnt my first language, though this article was copy edited by a native speaker User:Wereldburger758, who is now on an indefinite leave. Check if the above sentence is fine, otherwise please suggest how it should be.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

i have also requested a copy edit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, waiting for some editor to take a look at the article.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 21:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Not promoted - no consensus for promotion after being open for 28+ days -MBK₀₀₄ 03:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Siege of Jerusalem (637)

Nominator(s): الله أكبرMohammad Adil

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... after having this article peer reviewed twice, and following all the suggestions and advices given by the reviewers i felt confident that it meets the requirements. Regards.... الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There are still hyphens instead of ndashes in the number ranges, adn the citations are still inconsistent with respect to spacing or non-spacing YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

just fixed them, i didnt knew that ndsh was for all numbers, i thought it to be only useful betwn the dates.

Wht did u meant by the citations are still inconsistent with respect to spacing or non-spacing

i didnt get it, plz explain. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 23:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In some cases you use p.56 and others p. 56. Also in some cases you use p. for multiple pages and pp. dot for other multiple pages YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks, i just Fixed them. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 12:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with dab or external links. Image:Al aqsa moschee 2.jpg is missing alt text, please add this forthwith.
  • The second paragraph in the prelude section has no references; see what you can do about adding references.
  • To the best of your ability see about integrating the links in the see also section into the body of the main text and removing the section from the article. Over the years the people at FAC have grown openly against such sections, so this will save some hassle for you there when you finish here. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Done...

I have provided references, and hv removed see also section.

I have tried earlier with alt text in info box image and i tried again [12], it isnt working in the info box, or may be there is some thing wrong with my coding.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I would've left a message about that if I had known it was going to be an issue. For the main infobox captions the alt test goes on the line with the actual image parameters (ie the line with "Image:example.xxx") rather than the caption line. Just add the alt= parameter after the last vertical line and plug the alt text in like that; it'll show up when you save again. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Done...

Thanks for help, i hv also added it to damascus and yarmouk's articles.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 17:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The article still needs something of a copyedit, as in many places, pronouns aren't used, so that Jerusalem is often repeated over and over in close proximity. The second thing is that in some places a definite or indefinite article is missing, eg "starting [a] series of campaigns" YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with YellowMonkey re the grammar/prose issue. I have this on my GA review list, and have posted similar comments there. I did go through the lead and try to set an example. I realize that English may not be the first language of the editor, and in such cases, we need to be helpful, but it still needs to be clear and literate. Mohammad Adil, you've done a nice job explaining this battle. Please work with us to get the prose up to where it should be. Do you have someone who can help you go through this? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes thats true English isnt my first language, there was this user User:Wereldburger758 who helped me out in the copy editing of Battle of Yarmouk and Siege of Damascus (634) but he is on indefinite wiki vacations. See if you guys can help.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an effort to pick on you because of your English skills. They are actually quite good, and you should be commended for even trying to write an article in another language. I suggest you find the Guild of Copy Editors and see if one of them can help you. They are top notch copy editors who do all kinds of editing for people who need or want help. In the meantime, and one of the others could advise more on this, perhaps you should withdraw this without prejudice....? I don't know but YellowMonkey would. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed some pronoun related problems where jerusalem was repeatedly used, as user yellow monkey pointed out. I have also tried fixing some article related issues putting 'the' and 'a' in various places where they were missing. You can check it here [13]

As i said before that english isnt my native language and the user who helped me out in past in copy editing is now on indefinite leave so kindly you can help me out where ever i stuck.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 21:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have requested a copy edit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 21:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have passed this article at the Good Article stage, but I do think it needs more work to pass MH ACR. The single sentence on the siege seems brief for an article about the siege. Although I understand that the besiegers didn't want to invest a lot of time investing the city, so to speak, surely Gibbon had more on this event, which apparently lasted several months? I like the aftermath information, the founding of the mosque of the Rock, etc. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

no, not even Gibbon had much to say about the siege. In fact the early muslim historian didnt wrote any detailed account of the siege, making it impossible for us to expand the siege section further.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Not promoted - no consensus for promotion after being open for 28+ days -MBK₀₀₄ 02:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602–628

Nominator(s): DemonicInfluence (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I've recently created the article and think it's pretty good. Any advice would be helpful. Thanks DemonicInfluence (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Motion to close without prejudice - This article is also a current GAC candidate, and we all know that the two processes rarely offer advise that overlaps. I think it better to close this early and let the GAC run its course before we offer our ACR advise. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know they didn't run simultaneously because I'm pretty new. In that case, please close this. Thanks DemonicInfluence (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with running the reviews concurrently. Both Ian and I have had an article up for both GA and A-Class at the same time on several occasions previously, and so long as the article is up to a reasonable standard—I haven't yet had a look—then I don't see why this could or should be an issue. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Contrarian advice has never been a problem in my opinion. Certainly I've never experienced one mob asking one to regress an article to make it more suitable or anything YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Alright then, I will offer my own review in light of this new evidence, though I do note IMO its a bad idea to have both run simultaneously. At any rate, here are my initial thoughts:
  • No problems reported with external links. A number of your images are missing alt text, this needs to be added if the article is pass the review. Three dab links need to be located and if at all possible removed from the article.
    • Added alt text to all the images I thought seemed needed. I didn't feel the coin images and the maps needed alt text. Correct me if I'm wrong. I fixed the two dab links that I could. The third one, Nicetas, doesn't have an article yet. I plan on creating that article in the near future.
      • I have added alt text to all images. Hopefully improved on the prexisting ones.--DemonicInfluence (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • With the generous help of User:Mohammad adil, campaign maps will be added to this article
      • You've still got two links to ambiguous articles, and I am reluctant to offer my support until these are removed from the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I have created pages so the links now point to small pages about those two disambiguous links.DemonicInfluence (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Lets see about breaking up that huge intro paragraph into two or three paragraphs, its large and its unbecoming of an article at these higher assessments standards.
    • Done
  • Your intro paragraph has the line "'The Persians desperately assaulted Constantinople but were defeated there." Why desperate? That sounds like a weasel work to me, and I would thus recommend it be removed.
    • I have removed that word
  • You seem a little thin on visual media in the middle of the article, and some of the images seem to be forced sized, which is frowned on unless you have good reason to make an image big.
    • I couldn't find any images relevant to this article in the wikimedia commons other than more coin images, which is kind of redundant. The reason I made one of the images (Cherub and Heraclius receiving the submission of Khosrau II) bigger was because I felt like it was too small originally to see the main action in it.

TomStar81 (Talk) 03:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing, TomStar81. DemonicInfluence (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm waiting for the GA to finish, so no reviewer has to do the same things twice. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The GA doesn't look like it is going to start anytime soon. Perhaps we can go through this first? DemonicInfluence (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I've added a few fact tags in places were citations are necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I've added sources to those places where you marked. Thanks for noting those places. DemonicInfluence (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 22:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Not promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 23:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Barrage (artillery)

Nominator(s): Cyclopaedic (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I've taken it as far as i can, and I think it now gives a comprehensive and intelligible explanation of the subject. Cyclopaedic (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Leaning towards oppose Sorry, but I think there may be some issues here that might take a while to sort through - I suspect a peer review might have been a better forum to discuss the best way to present the article and prepare it for a GAN of ACR. I'll give a flavour of my thoughts though:
  • Prose: I think the whole article needs a thorough copyedit and possibly a few people's input to agree layout/style etc... Unfortunately I see a few typos, grammar, tense and prose problems, isolated paragraph/sentences, etc...
  • Article Layout: I'm a bit confused about the evolution of barrages - did the creeping barrage precede the static barrage? Most of the paragraph on standing barrage discusses creeping barrages too, which makes me wonder whether static barrages are a variation of creeping barrages and should perhaps be a subsection of that section. Also the stuff at the end that explains the etymology of the word barrage might be better at the start of the article, rather than the end.
  • Section layout: In each section the layout might need work too. For example in "WWII", the section begins with a focus on El Alemain, then describes the African campaign in general, then Tunisa. Best to start general and then focus in. Later in the section it starts to read more like a listing of a few examples of creeping barrages, rather than a flowing prose on the use of the tactic.
  • References: There don't seem to be enough. For instance there are only 2 refs for the entire "Standing and box barrages" section. I'm usually quite generous about referencing, but there are so many issues covered in each paragraph that one ref just isn't enough to cover them all. In particular the whole "Use and misuse of the word" section almost looks like WP:OR. I'm sure its correct but it needs some refs for what look like opinions rather than agreed facts.
  • History: I don't know about the history of barrages (so this article has been enlightening!), but the Boer war image doesn't look like open sights to me, and the image description calls it a barrage! I'm not saying the article's wrong, but I think it might need more refs actually stating that the barrage only evolved in WWI.

Hope this helps, and I'll be delighted if these issues can be rectified quickly, but I think it needs a bit of work. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Object Hard data should be cited. There are numbers all over the place and sometimes no citation within 3-5 sentences. Also, after the WWII section the article just tapers out. If this tactic has died out, it should be explained why it has become obsolete. If it hasn't been obsolete it needs to be expanded YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose – sorry, but there are just too many issues with the article at present. In addition to those noted above, I have the following comments:

• Single line/sentence paragraphs should be combined with other paragraphs.
• The images require alt text.
• Dashes used in date ranges in the article or page ranges used in citations should be replaced with endashes. For example, "1914-15" to "1914–15".
• As noted above, references in general are lacking.
• Websites used as citations should not be presented as raw URLs. I would recommend the use of Template:Cite web.
• Cite # 16: "Hogg, pp 32 % 147". Umm, why is there a percentage symbol here?
• Book sources listed in the "References" section require ISBNs. Also, it might be an idea to implement Template:Cit book here.
• There really needs to be more detail on barrages in the article, particularly post Second World War.

Although this article does require a bit of work yet, please do not be discouraged and I hope you will continue to develop the piece. If this assessment does fail, I would recommend all of the above comments be taken into consideration and the article can be re-developed from there. After this, you might like to submit it for a peer review. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I see atleast one paragraph without a citation. Thats enough to make this a Start-class article, and if its start class then it needs help satisfying the B-Class criteria before its comes here. In addition:
  • None of your images use alt text, please go back and add this text to your visual media. You have one dead external link and a number of external links flagged as suspicious, please check and advise. No disambiguation links reported.
  • You introduction is limited to examples from the world wars, surely you could get more info in there about the evolving use from Korea to the present.
  • You skip straight to the creeping barrage. We are not talking about creeping barrages, we talk about the barrage; surely we can work in the history of the barrage before we get to the definitions of the barrage as presented in the section.
  • The sanding and box barrages should be merged into the preceding section, which itself should be renamed types of barrages.
  • Your article's skipping around on subject matter like an out-of-date record. Lets get some uniformity in the prose: introduction, history, modern day, definition and explanation of terms, future developments.
  • Although its eluded to, your need to state clearly that this applies to naval artillery as well. That important fact is noticeably absent in the article.
• I recommend that your withdraw this request and file for a Peer Review instead, its obvious that the article simply isn;t in a position where it can reasonably obtain an A-class rank right now. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.