Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2010/Promoted

Promoted

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 -- Ian Rose (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

ARA Rivadavia

Nominator(s): Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]}

I originally wrote this article back in June/July 2009, using mostly Whitley. I have supplemented this with references to The New York Times and various other books and now feel it is ready for an A-class nomination. The only sticking point is page numbers for the new NYT references – irritatingly their website does not give page numbers any longer. Proquest still should, though, so I'd appreciate it if someone could look them up for me (it's only like three stories). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Page numbers from ProQuest: not sure if these help or not:
  • Accident to Rivadavia, The New York Times, 19 September 1913, p. 1;
  • I couldn't find Argentine Warship Makes 22.56 Knots, but found 22.48 Knots for Rivadavia, The New York Times, 16 September 1913, p. 12;
  • Orders to Rivadavia to Bring Gold - The New York Times, 7 October 1918, p. 12;
  • I couldn't find Rivadavia Off For Home, sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for taking the time to do this. I have added page numbers to "Accident" and "Orders." "22.48" is from a day earlier, I think; I left it out because it didn't add much. I can understand not having "Off for Home" because it's from 1926 (and so after the free articles), but it's frustrating to know they don't have 22.56... I'll try to figure something out. Thanks again! :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I've emailed the NYT about this. Let's see if I can (a) get a response and/or (b) actually change something... ! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
        • No worries. Hopefully that solves the issue. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links, external links check out and the citation tool reveals no errors (no action required);
  • One of the images lacks alt text (not required though - so its up to you if you want to add it);
  • I have made quite a number of changes to the lead, so please have a look and alter as required;
  • Per WP:CITESHORT I believe you should add the abbrev 'p.' (and 'pp.' for multipage cites) to your short citations, e.g. Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 45 would become Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," p. 45. and Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 45–46 would become Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," pp. 45–46.;
  • You might consider using the {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} templates for your references as they don't currently follow the standard format and seem a little inconsistent;
  • Overall though this is an excellent article and I'm happy to add my support. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Anotherclown. I have used this citation style for quite some time; it follows most of the conventions of the The Chicago Manual of Style with a couple additions to assist WP readers (ISBNs, OCLCs, etc.). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
      • No worries. ISBNs and OCLCs can still be used with the {{Citebook}} template but its up to you of course. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:Support
  • there is a mix of US and British English, e.g. "armor" (US) in the prose, but then "Armour" (British) in the infobox;
  • there is a mixture of terminology, e.g. "World War I" and then later "First World War": these should be consistent;
  • in the Background it begins with "Moreno's genesis..." Is this a typo? Should it be Rivadavia? I think it is best to keep the subject of the first sentence about the subject of the article, so if it isn't a typo maybe it could be reworded, e.g. "Rivadavia's sister ship, Moreno..." or something similar. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed
    • Fixed, good catch
    • That was a carryover from Moreno when I reused the section (being sister ships, they have the same background). Another good catch. Thank you! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support I made a few minor links in the article. Overall it is comprehensive enough for A-class. Well done! —Ed!^(talk) 20:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments "The United States' designated ...": no verb in the sentence. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Rockford, Maine": comma after per Chicago 10.30. - Dank (push to talk)
• "a maximum speed of 22.567 knots": I don't remember seeing the speed to 3 decimal places before, so I'm wondering if their measurement was really that accurate. - Dank (push to talk)
• "attempted to influence Argentina": in what way? - Dank (push to talk) 17:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• "the Rivadavias": I don't think it's a good idea to mention the expression just once without a link or explanation. If you like, we could put the expression in the first sentence of Rivadavia-class battleship and link "the Rivadavias" to that page. But "Rivadavia and Moreno" works for me. - Dank (push to talk)
• "After returning to Argentina in March–April 1926": Give the month in which she arrived. I wouldn't object to "leaving ... in March and returning in April", but that's probably more detail than the readers need. - Dank (push to talk)
• "undergoing sea trials and "work-up". The dreadnought": What does "work-up" mean? - Dank (push to talk)
• "Rio de Janeiro, Brazil": here too, comma after. I'm mentioning it instead of making the edit because I'm hoping others will start catching this. - Dank (push to talk) 20:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • All actionable requests done. @knots, they have been that specific for the Minas Geraes class and Bahia class. @influence, no specifics were given by Livermore. @work-up, I removed it, I think it is akin to trials. Apologies on getting back late to this; I had exams on Thursday and Friday, then forgot about it. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Not a problem. Still no verb (like this sentence). My point about "influence" is that if you don't know what it means, then the reader won't know, either. In Wikipedia, sentences are supposed to convey information that means something. This isn't always true for press releases, cable news, political blather and academic puffery: sometimes their goal is to sound like they know what they're talking about without actually saying anything they could be pinned down on. Whenever a writer hints that they know something without actually telling us what they know, don't use that bit. - Dank (push to talk) 13:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • @verb, try it now. @interests, I forgot that Livermore provided an example in a footnote, and I've included it in the article -- "group of French bankers, on behalf of the Russian government, were offering in gold twice the contract price of the ships, which were to be turned over to Greece." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 14 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.

---

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Sangju (1950)

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!^(talk) 21:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I reviewed this for GA yesterday and believe that it also meets the A-class criteria. I have the following comments for the sake of the review:
  • there are no dabs, ext links work and all images have alt text (no action required);
  • my only suggestion is that you might consider getting someone outside the project to go over the article for jargon and to do a copy edit as, to be honest, my copy editing skills are not that great and as an insider my ability to identify jargon is limited. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I read the whole thing and didn't see anything that I thought needed to be changed. --Kumioko (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Dana boomer (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Comments - Had the whole review typed out, and then the computer erased it. Oh well...
  • File:US Retreat from Taejon.jpg, File:24th Infantry in Korea.jpg and File:24th Infantry in Korea.jpg are not under acceptable licenses on Flickr (they have no commercial use licenses).
    • Both images are licensed under Creative Commons here. They're both works taken by US Army photographers and are distributed by a US Army account, so both are in public domain. I'm not sure how else to fix it, but both checked out in previous ACRs and one in This FAC. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Right, but that is a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported license. NonCommercial, No Deriv licenses are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Just because something has a creative commons license doesn't mean that it has a license that allows it to be on our "Commons". I know that most US Army photos are completely in the public domain (commercial use and derivatives are allowed) - so is the Flickr account wrong? This might be something to ask an image specialist about (Jappalang is the guy I go to when I have an image question). Dana boomer (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Per Jappalang's response here, the second image is fine. Since the first isn't important to the article I've just removed it. —Ed!^(talk) 06:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Thanks for following up on this. Sorry for the image name duplication above, the third one was supposed to be File:24th Inf at Pusan.jpg, but it looks like that one should be verifiably by a US gov't employee too, so should be fine. Everything looks good now, so I'm changing to support. Dana boomer (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Outbreak of war, "buy time to allow follow on forces to arrive." Follow on forces?
    • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • North Korean attack on Sangju, "However the withdraw had been a part of the plan for reorganizing" First, this is ungrammatical. Second, it was part of the plan but they didn't communicate their intentions? How could the US not know their intentions if it was part of the plan? Or was this just a plan among the Koreans, which the US wasn't party to?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • US consolidates around Sangju, "35th Infantry came to grief north". First, "came to grief" in unencyclopedic. Second, it doesn't really sound like they came to grief. Despite being outnumbered and having their supply line cut off, they were able to inflict heavy losses and disengage. Unless something else happened that isn't described here, this isn't a lot of grief.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The 24th infantry falters, "These positions were twice the length prescribed to a US Army regiment," Was it their idea to spread out this far, or were they ordered to?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Same section, "got out of hand." Again, unencyclopedic language.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Same section, "a panic arose among the men and the majority of the battalion left its positions." Why did they panic?
    • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Same section, "He had to reorganize the battalion himself" Is this significant? Was a colonel not supposed to reorganize a battalion?
    • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Same section, "part of it direct fire" As opposed to indirect fire? What is special about it being direct fire?
    • Removed that clause. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • US withdrawal, "stopped every vehicle coming from the west, taking off stragglers." How did he know they were stragglers?
    • Clarified. Basically, men who had no real reason to be withdrawing were stragglers in this instance. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Same section, "He averaged about 75 stragglers a day and, on the last day, he collected 150." So he was there for two days? Then just say so.
    • Clarified. He caught 150 men on the last day alone. The rest of the days he collected 75 men a day. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
      • For some reason I was kept reading that as "by the last day" instead of "on the last day". Oops. Well, the rewording looks better anyways.
  • Same section, "plagued by stragglers" You keep calling them stragglers, which implies they are men moving (and falling) behind a main group. Instead, if I'm reading the article right, they were men deliberately moving away from the main group. This makes them not stragglers.
    • My sources consistently use the term. They weren't deserters since they weren't trying to escape the military, but they weren't mutineers since they weren't trying to overthrow their officers. They were simply running away without orders whenever the North Koreans shot at them. Is there a better word? —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Probably, but I can't think of one at the moment, so I guess it'll have to stay as it is.
  • Same section, "senior commanders had to personally move in to help resist the Korean advance." Did senior commanders not go to the front often? How did they help? Did the give pep talks? Or actually help in the fighting?
    • Clarified. Higher ranking officers usually don't fight on the front lines as they had to in this instance. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Same section, "placed it in blocking positions behind the 24th Infantry" Blocking what? The advance of the Koreans or the retreat of the Americans?
    • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Same section, "After regimental commanders pleaded unsuccessfully with him to return to his position, he was arrested and tried for desertion under fire, a capital offense." Since the last person you were talking was the senior noncom, this sounds like it was him that was arrested. I think, however, that you are talking about the 1st Lt.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Aftermath, "The 24th Infantry was fully desegregated on October 1, 1951." What do you mean by fully desegregated? What is the criteria? Half whites and half blacks?
    • Basically. As of this battle the regiment was "officially" desegregated, but 95 percent of its men were black. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I still don't really like the way this is worded, but it's more of a style thing, I guess.
  • Same section, "white officers unable to assert their authority" What do you mean by unable to assert their authority? They couldn't? Wouldn't? Didn't know they had it?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• This article starts out well, but falls apart a bit at the end. Some jargon, unencyclopedic language, and lack of clarity and detail plague the end of the Battle section and the Aftermath section. Dana boomer (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC) (edited 01:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC))
  • I have responded to everything. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the quick response. I have struck most of my comments, but am waiting to change to a support until the image issue is resolved. Dana boomer (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • The lead is a little repetitive in places: specifically the over use of the words "poorly", "performed", "performance" and "performed poorly" etc. Maybe reword?;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • After being written in full at first mention (i.e. Major General William B. Kean) should not include the rank on subsequent mention (i.e. General Kean should just be Kean, same to for Colonel White and Lieutenant Gilbert);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think its really necessary to describe the road as "the first and main road", maybe reword to just "on the main road"?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • 'US' doesn't need to be included in the ranks AFAIK (i.e. US Brigadier General Vennard Wilson or US Lieutenant Colonel John L. Wilkins should just be Brigadier General Vennard Wilson and Lieutenant Colonel John L. Wilkins IMO;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • This sentence is a little repetative "The withdrawal had been a part of the plan for reorganizing the line to incorporate the US troops, but the US troops expected them to send a message before doing so, and did not adjust their defenses to compensate." (specifically use of "US troops" twice).;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Use of the term "enemy" in this sentence should be avoided: "The covering fire of a platoon of tanks on the south side held off the enemy and allowed most of the survivors to eventually escape." Maybe reword to North Koreans or something similar?;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Use of the term "enemy" in this sentence is also problematic IMO: "Soon enemy rifle fire came in on the dispersed men and E and F Companies immediately began withdrawing in a disorderly manner.";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • This should possibily be reworded: "enveloped the North Korean position that had caused the attack". Specifically "caused the attack" I'm assuming you meant "that had launched the attack"?; and
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • All timings need to be reformatted to separate the hours from the minutes with a colon per WP:MOSTIME (i.e. where you write 0500 this should be 05:00). Anotherclown (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed. I think that's everything. —Ed!^(talk) 19:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
      • IMO this is another excellent article. All my suggestions have been dealt with so I'm happy to support. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• SupportXavierGreen (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. "July 20–31, 1950": comma after 1950. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Yechon, Sangju": comma after. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "de facto segregated": it's not plausible that the unit just happened to be segregated; black troops must have been assigned to the unit. Better to say "almost all black troops", "largely black troops", or whatever. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Removed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Yechon, Sangju and the surrounding areas": most readers will misinterpret this as "Yechon in Sangju" (despite the previous mention of "village of Sangju"). Better would be "Yechon county, Sangju city, and the surrounding areas". - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• I've rewritten the last paragraph in the lead; there are a lot of judgment calls here, so I'll reproduce it here in case anyone wants to change it: "The US 24th Infantry Regiment of the 25th Division was ineffective in its first showing. The regiment, composed mostly of black troops, was criticized by the Army for being quick to panic and retreat. Some historians have criticized the Army's statements as biased, downplaying the regiment's successes and overstating its failures." - Dank (push to talk)
  • That works fine. —Ed!^(talk) 23:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• See my previous comments, some of which also apply to this article. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "subsequent outbreak ... as a result": redundant. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "subsequently": more than one "subsequent(ly)" in quick succession is ponderous. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Sangju was a place of both confusion and activity": not clear. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Artillery and mortars fired scheduled missions on the town": maybe "Artillery and mortars fired on the town" - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "3rd Battalion, 24th Infantry": comma after. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "soon the town was on fire from the shells", "ablaze with fires started by American artillery shells": redundant. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "North Korean casualties at the fight could not be estimated at the time.": North Korean casualties could not be estimated. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "News of the capture, however, was picked up by the US media": Per Chicago 5.207, use "however" either as a heavy-handed substitute for "but" or as an adverb to modify what comes before it. So: "News of the capture was picked up however by the US media". (Commas wouldn't be wrong around "however" here, but I'd prefer to go without.) - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "The 1st Battalion emplaced": probably "The 1st Battalion was emplaced" - Dank (push to talk)
  • Passive voice? —Ed!^(talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Repeated use of the passive voice is sometimes called "weak"; more accurately, it's a sign that the writer may be avoiding telling us who's doing the acting. I don't see that problem here. "emplaced" is a transitive verb per WNW; you were using it intransitively. - Dank (push to talk) 02:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• "The 1st Battalion ... did not stay longer than 24 hours. It had been immediately sent to reinforce": nonparallel verb tenses. Better is: "The 1st Battalion ... stayed less than [possibly: not longer than] 24 hours before it was sent to reinforce" - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "2nd Battalion, 17th Regiment": comma after. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "reportedly destroyed four more tanks": "reportedly" means you, the writer, have some doubts. If so, tell the reader what makes you doubt the information. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "The decimated remnants": redundant. "the remnants". - Dank (push to talk)
  • • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "defense line": maybe "defensive line" is better. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Okay, that's everything through Battle of Sangju (1950)#UN consolidates around Sangju, a little more than half. - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I've responded to everything. Thanks again. —Ed!^(talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support for just the parts I covered. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 17 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.

---

Japanese battleship Hiei

Nominator(s): Cam ^(Chat)(Prof)

Hiei was the second of the Kongo battlecruisers, and the first one constructed in Japan. She underwent what was likely the most varied reconstructions of any of the warships, being converted to a training ship to avoid being scrapped in 1929, before being reconfigured as a fast battleship. This is the last of the Kongo battlecruiser articles left to go through ACR. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 16:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Technical comments

• Dab links: Henderson Field.
• External links: combinedfleet.com returns a redirect warning.
• Alt text: none present.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments -- Looks pretty good. Performed a light copyedit but generally prose seems fine, as do structure, coverage and referencing. A few points:

• Formatting inconsistencies... You say "6-inch (15 cm) 50-caliber medium guns in single casemates", then "The sixteen 6"/50 caliber guns". First off, why go to ' " ' for inch when you said "inch" before? Second, if "50-caliber" is hyphenated the first time, why not the next? I would say you should use "inch" everywhere, and hyphenate gun size/caliber everywhere as well. Note there are also instances under Service, particularly re. her reconstruction, where you drop the hyphenation -- pls make it consistent.

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 02:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Spelling inconsistencies... I gather you're favouring US spelling throughout but I spotted "harbour" under Combat and loss -- pls fix and check elsewhere.

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 02:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Do "Training Ship" and "Fast Battleship" need to be in capital letters in the relevant subheadings?

they're official titles of ship type, I'd think so, but I'm open to changing them as well. thoughts? Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well they're not capitalised anywhere in the text so it should be consistent one way or the other... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed for consistency, also dealt with disambig and external link issues. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 22:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't HMS Hermes (95) be piped to simply "HMS Hermes"?

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 02:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Images: Not sure about the licensing for the infobox illustration -- who exactly is granting usage under GNU? All other pics seem okay.

I'm pretty sure it's the same licensing as the line-drawings I've used on other japanese battlesship articles, in that the author of the images granted it. I'll doublecheck though. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 02:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's okay, I had another look myself and now that I've deciphered the author's signature I think it's cool. Happy to support now but can you respond to the query re. caps in the subheaders above? Also the Henderson Field dab (see Technical Comments) is still there... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - can't find any major issues. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments/questions:
  • What did Hiei do for rescue work in response to the 1923 earthquake?

none of my sources give exact details; they simply say that she did participate in rescue-work. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• • After the 1927 refit, how were the embarked floatplanes launched and recovered? Cla68 (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. "was demilitarized and converted": I'd prefer "was converted". - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "throughout the mid-1930s": in the mid-1930s - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Kongō class battlecruisers": hyphen - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Caption: "Hiei fitting out in Yokosuka, September 1913": Hiei's fitting-out in Yokosuka, September 1913 (no period). It's clearer this way that "fitting-out" is a noun. - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "they have been called the battlecruiser version": ... versions - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "With their heavy armament and armor protection (which took up 23.3% of their approximately 30,000 ton displacement)": I can't tell from the sentence whether the armor or the armament plus the armor constituted 23.3%. - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed I believe. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "in four twin turrets (two forward, two aft)": not a big deal, but it's best to avoid parentheses if there's an easy workaround, since they're a little ponderous. "in four twin turrets, two forward and two aft". OTOH, the "(all located amidships)" in the next paragraph is perfect. - Dank (push to talk) 04:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "could fire ... at a firing rate of ...": could fire at a rate of - Dank (push to talk)

That is a stupid redundancy on my part. Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "deploying more powerful vessels before their opponents": deploying powerful vessels before their opponents (wasn't clear what the vessels were more powerful than). - Dank (push to talk)

I'm confused. What I'm trying to say is that the warships the Japanese designed were deliberately more powerful than anything else in any other navy. I've changed to "more powerful vessels than their opponents", if that works as well. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That works. - Dank (push to talk) 22:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "main-guns": main guns - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "dyes were introduced for the armor-piercing shells of the four Kongo-class battleships": It would help to add something like "so that gunners could distinguish the hits from a distance". - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "5–6 rounds per minute": "5 or 6 ..." or "between 5 and 6 ..." - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "the former German colonies in the Caroline, Marshall and Mariana Islands, and Palau": the former German colonies in Palau and in the Caroline, Marshall and Mariana Islands. (In a list, put the compound element after the simple element(s).) - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "less active than during the war": less active after the war - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Second Reserve": would benefit from a quick explanation or link. - Dank (push to talk)

I've hunted through every reference material I have in my collection, Carleton's collection, and the interlibrary loan collection I have access to. Nowhere does anything specify what "first reserve" and "second reserve" are in terms of the difference between them. If I could fix this problem, I would. I'll ask cla68 if he's got anything. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "This resulted in the signing of the Washington Naval Treaty in 1922. Under the terms of the treaty,": "Under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922," - Dank (push to talk)

done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "the size of the Imperial Japanese Navy was significantly lessened": the Imperial Japanese Navy was significantly reduced - Dank (push to talk)

done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "in preparation for her demilitarization and reconstruction": would "decommissioning" work for you in place of "demilitarization", or does that not get the full meaning? - Dank (push to talk)

Decomissioning implies that the scrapyards are on the way. Hiei wasn't decommissioned from the navy, simply converted. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. I've copyedited articles on British battlecruisers that went through 3 cycles of commissioning and decommissioning. How about "in preparation for her reconstruction"? - Dank (push to talk) 22:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Please link the first occurrence of "demilitarize" or "demilitarization" to demilitarization. - Dank (push to talk) 21:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Okay I'm trying to limit my copyediting to around an hour per A-class review, so I'll stop here. Take a whack at these, and then I can probably support just the parts I had time to copyedit: look at: the introduction, first section, and first subsection after that. - Dank (push to talk)
• Looks good, now supporting the parts I looked at. - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments This is a well-written and comprehensive article, but needs a bit more work to reach A class:
  • Why is her original armament the only feature of her design discussed in the 'Design and construction' section? (and is this really needed if she didn't differ from her sister ships when built?)
  • Russian battleship Imperator Nikolai I was named Iki and had most recently been a coast defence and training ship at the time she was sunk and hadn't been a 'Russian pre-dreadnought' for 10 years

I've added a bit about this. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• • What did being in 'Second Reserve' involve?

See above in answer to Dan as well. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It might be best to just say she was in 'reserve' then. Using a technical term you can't provide a definition for is probably best avoided when possible (I'd guess that the different categories of reserve referred to the resources set aside to crew and reactivate the ship) Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Why was her reconstruction halted by the London Treaty if it "restricted battleship construction" - the article previously stated that she was being demilitarised so that she was no longer considered a battleship (I presume that the definition of 'battleship' was widened to avoid dodges such as this)

I'm not as familiar w/ the London Treaty as the Washington, but my guess is that you're probably correct; the definition was likely widened to stop navies like Japan's from bending the rules. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• • The first paragraph of the '1942: Combat and loss' section needs to note that she was operating with the carrier force during its operations off the Netherlands East Indies in February and March 1942; the article currently implies that she was operating independently

I'm not entirely sure which passage you're referring to. Could you specify a sentence? Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"In February, she deployed alongside a force of carriers and destroyers in response to American raids on Japanese bases in the Gilbert and Marshall Islands.[5] On 1 March, following carrier operations against Darwin and Java, Hiei, Kirishima and Chikuma engaged the destroyer USS Edsall (DD-219), with Hiei firing 210 14-inch and seventy 6-inch shells. When the ships failed to score any hits, dive-bombers from three of Admiral Nagumo's carriers immobilized the destroyer, which was then sunk by gunfire from the three ships." - it should be clearly noted that she sortied again with the carriers after the raid on the Gilbert and Marshalls, which led to the actions near the NEI. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed I believe. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• • The Australian town of 'Port Darwin' only exists in some American-authored literature on World War II - the town was called by its present name of 'Darwin' at the time.

Fixed and properly linked. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• • "However, shells from San Francisco disabled Hiei's steering machinery." is currently unreferenced

Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Was Hiei located and photographed by Robert Ballard during his expedition to the Solomon Islands? Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe so. They located Kirishima, but from what I know of the expedition they didn't manage to locate Hiei. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • The first sentence in the lead doesn't work for me: "Hiei (比叡?) was a warship of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War I and World War II." Surely the battleship didn't just serve during the wars but in between them as well? Maybe reword?
    • She definitely did serve in between the wars, but that's where her prominence lies. I'm mostly following convention from Japanese battleship Haruna, which I've used as the template for the subsequent class articles.
      • It still seems imprecise to me and I believe it should be reworded, but if you don't want to I won't hold up the review to insist on it. Anotherclown (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The second last sentence it the lead also seems awkward: "After inflicting heavy damage on American cruisers and destroyers, Hiei was crippled by American vessels." May something like: "After inflicting heavy damage on a number of American cruisers and destroyers, Hiei was crippled."
    • would "enemy vessels" work better? I want to make it clear who was doing the crippling. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes. It works for me in this case because the subject of the article is the ship itself, not the battle, where the term might come across as POV. Anotherclown (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The tense in this sentence seems troublesome: "The four battlecruisers of the Kongō-class were designed to match the naval capabilities of the other major powers at the time; they have been called the battlecruiser versions of the British (formerly Turkish) battleship HMS Erin." Why not something like: "The four battlecruisers of the Kongō-class were designed to match the naval capabilities of the other major powers at the time and were called the battlecruiser versions of the British (formerly Turkish) battleship HMS Erin."
    • Except they weren't considered that equivalent until well after all four had been sunk; it's only in subsequent scholarship and analysis that they've been compared to HMS Erin. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
      • No worries, it could still be reworded to be more clear IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the words 'antiaircraft' and 'antiship' be hypenated (i.e anti-ship)?
    • Webster's NWD and Merriam-Webster say "antiaircraft". I assume anti-ship should be hyphenated. - Dank (push to talk) 06:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Acknowledged. Anotherclown (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The first sentence in the 1914-1929 section is repetative: "On 4 August 1914, Hiei was formally commissioned and attached to the Sasebo Naval District, before being attached to the Third Battleship Division of the First Fleet two weeks later." (you use attached twice in the same sentence);
    • Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Use of the terms 'First World War' and 'World War I' interchangably. Please pick one and use it consistently; and
    • Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You seem to have used an inconsistent short citation style in the inline citations: in some instances you have just used author and page (e.g Frank, pp. 167–172) and in others you have used author, date and page (e.g. Jackson (2000), p. 72 ). AFAIK both are correct although I prefer author, date and page. Regardless please choose one and use it consistantly.
    • That was a carry-over from previous articles where I had two jackson books. I've fixed this. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
      • This actually seems to be worse now... you seem to use three different citations now: (1) Jackson with no year (2) Jackson (2000) and (3) Jackson (2007). In the references section you only list Jackson 2000 though. Maybe I'm missing something thats really obvious to everyone else but this just seems wrong to me. Meanwhile the inline citation style remains inconsist per my original comments. Anotherclown (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Yeah. that did mess it up further. I use the year for Jackson because there's two different Jackson books. It's the only way to differentiate between them (publishing year). Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 21:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
          • I must not be explaining this very well because it is still incorrect. I have gone ahead and added dates to all inline citations for consistency now so this mostly solves this concern. However you have two inline citations which are not supported by a reference. Specifically # 4 Jackson (2008), p. 27 and # 11 McLaughlin, pp. 44–45. Neither of these citations correspond with an entry in the references section so I cannot fix this myself. Please add them to the references section. Anotherclown (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh! I get it now! I've added the books. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Yep thats it. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Otherwise this is an excellent article and I will gladly support when these issues are resolved. Anotherclown (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Support
  • the Advisor script reports that there might be an error with the ISBNs for Schom and Willmott, could you please check these?;

Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• • some of the ISBNs have hyphens and others don't, these should probably be presented in a consistent style;

Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• • in the Notes there is "Gardiner and Gray (1980), p. 234", however, in the References the only work I can find by Gardiner and Grey has a 1984 publication date;
    • Can you please check this one, it still appears to be an issue? AustralianRupert (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. It's actually 1984

• • in the Notes there is "Stille (2004)" and "Stille (2008)", but in the References only "Stille 2008";
    • Damn... this was my mistake. It is meant to be 2008 but I must have muffed it when adding the dates to the citations. I have fixed this now. My apologies. Anotherclown (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Notes there is "Willmott (2002)", but the work appears to be by Willmott and Keegan, so I think the short citation should be "Willmott and Keegan (2002)", given that you have "Gardiner and Grey";

That's because I ended up using a different version of the book. I've changed the citations to reflect this. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• • in the Notes there is inconsistency with the use of italics for the Parshall, Hackett et al source (e.g. Citation # 2 is in italics, but # 5 and 7 are not). These should be consistent;

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• • in the Notes most of the web citations are formatted as "Retrieved 26 February 2009", but then with Citation # 2 you have "Retrieved 2009-02-11". These should be consistent. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Closed with consensus to promote.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:16, 12 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.

---

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

SMS Grosser Kurfürst (1913)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

After a bit of business in real life, I finally have time to get back to Wiki stuff, so here we are. The second of four König class battleships (though the third to grace a MILHIST ACR), Grosser Kurfürst was the second battleship in the German line at Jutland, and was heavily damaged in the battle. The ship had something of a record for accidents, including rammings, running aground, and torpedo and mine damage. Like her sisters, she was scuttled at Scapa Flow, but unlike her class-mates, was raised and broken up for scrap in the 1930s. I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring this article meets our high standards for A-class articles. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - she rammed Konig but had no damage? That's gotta be an unusual occurrence. Any more information on that?
  • Page numbers for the Campbell chapter in Conway's? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Page numbers added. And yeah, it is rather odd - all Staff says is "On 7 December she lightly rammed Konig, but was not damaged herself." In the section on Konig, he says "On 7 December, Konig grounded on Wilhelmshaven Roads, and the battleship immediately astern, Grosser Kurfurst, had insufficient room to stop and rammed Konig in the stern to starboard. There was slight flooding and after coming free the ship went to Wilhelmshaven Dockyard and was under repair..." Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. Wherever you think it's appropriate, I'd prefer we have the same note we had in König, since the German sources will have this spelling: "(or ''Großer''<ref group=Note>This is the German "sharp S"; see [[ß]].</ref> ''Kurfürst'')" - Dank (push to talk)
• I'm surprised by the link to Prince-elector; the provisional name was Ersatz Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm, and I don't think Germans think of an office in the HRE when they hear the term, they're thinking of Frederick William I, Elector of Brandenburg (see the first paragraph of the article). "Großer Kurfürst" redirects to this guy in the German Wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk)
  • The four Konigs were all initially named for titles held by Wilhelm II - King (of Prussia), Crown Prince, Margrave, and Prince Elector.
    • Well ... interesting. I can't find anything that contradicts that, and what you say makes sense. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• "September–October 1917": September and October 1917 - Dank (push to talk)
• "After Germany's defeat in the war and the signing of the Armistice": After Germany's defeat and the signing of the Armistice - Dank (push to talk)
• "The ships were ... reduced to skeleton crews": The ships were ... limited to skeleton crews - Dank (push to talk)
• "The first combat operation in which the ship participated": The ship's first combat operation - Dank (push to talk)
• "29 until 31 May": This may be fine, I'm not sure. AmEng guides recommend "May 29 to May 31", but we're going with military style on this one. - Dank (push to talk)
• "two week training cruise": hyphen - Dank (push to talk)
• Note 2 should follow the first time given, 10:55. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Deutschland class pre-dreadnoughts": hyphen - Dank (push to talk)
• "At 17:45 ... a minute later at 17:46" Delete any one of the 3 time elements. - Dank (push to talk)
• Compare "Grosser Kurfürst was forced to shift fire from Princess Royal to the battleship Valiant, though by 18:16 she too had moved out of range." with "On 7 December, Grosser Kurfürst accidentally rammed her sister König, though she sustained no damage." It's not obvious enough which "she" is meant, in both sentences, although a perceptive reader could make reasonable guesses. I'd go with "Valiant too had moved" and "sustained no damage when she accidentally". - Dank (push to talk)
• "Grosser Kurfürst straddled Valiant four times and incorrectly claimed a hit on the ship": Grosser Kurfürst's shells straddled Valiant four times. - Dank (push to talk)
• "between 10,000 to 18,000 yd": between 10,000 and 18,000 yd - Dank (push to talk)
• "#2": No. 2 - Dank (push to talk)
• More to come. - Dank (push to talk) 04:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• "which allowed a significant quantity of water to enter the ship. Damage control teams managed to temporarily stop the flooding, by which time approximately 800 t (790 LT; 880 ST) of water had entered the ship.": Damage control teams managed to temporarily stop the flooding, after approximately 800 t (790 LT; 880 ST) of water had entered the ship. - Dank (push to talk)
• "list" and "counter-flooding" need links. - Dank (push to talk)
  • List (watercraft) added but there's no article for counter-flooding (nor anything on Wiktionary as far as I can tell). Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, then the question is whether a significant number of readers won't know what it means without an explanation; my guess is yes. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• "The remaining shells burst on impact and caused relatively minor damage": More hits were sustained, but these shells burst on impact and caused relatively minor damage. - Dank (push to talk)
• "north-west": AmEng is "northwest" - Dank (push to talk)
• "Damage was minimal and the ship proceeded to unit training in the Baltic. On the return to the North Sea on 4 March, however, she accidentally rammed Kronprinz.": Just one of the things I love about the new Chicago is that they take a stand on "however" at 5.207; until now, there's been a lot of hemming and hawing and pursing of the lips. Short version: use "however" if the context demands a ponderous word, or if you're using it adverbially to modify the word before it. "Damage was minimal and the ship proceeded to unit training in the Baltic, but on the return to the North Sea on 4 March, she accidentally rammed Kronprinz." - Dank (push to talk)
• Same here: "She struck a mine while maneuvering into firing position, however, ..." "But she struck a mine while maneuvering into firing position, ..." It's a myth that it's a bad idea to start a sentence with "but"; see Chicago 5.206. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Upon being informed of the situation, the Kaiser stated": When informed of the situation, the Kaiser stated, - Dank (push to talk)
• "most of the High Seas Fleet ... were": most of the High Seas Fleet ships ... were - Dank (push to talk)
• "the Allied fleet that was to escort": the Allied fleet that escorted. "Was to" can be an alternate form of the future-in-past tense, referring to an event in the future relative to the narrative before returning to the time of the narrative, or it can mean "was supposed to" or "was intended to". So, it's out of place here. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Those comments were all from Nov. 27. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I think I've fixed everything you suggested, Dan, with the exception of a couple I replied to specifically. Thanks for taking your scalpel to the prose and fixing what needed it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Now support. Less painful than a scalpel I hope. - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I concur in that the name should be "SMS Großer Kurfürst (1913)" and add the {{foreignchar}} template. Example {{foreignchar|SMS Grosser Kurfuerst (1913)|ß|ü}} MisterBee1966 (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Per WP:UE, titles should reflect what is commonly used in English-language sources, which commonly use the umlaut but very infrequently use the eszett. If memory serves me, the only English-language sources I've seen to use the eszett are Staff's book and Groner's (which is actually just a translation, so I'd say that's a bit of a stretch). Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I understand the argument that English sources use the "ß" less frequently than the Umlaute "ä", "ü" and "ö", I have to take your word here, but the Germans named the ship SMS Großer Kurfürst. Note: Swiss German doesn't even have the "ß" in their alphabet. A capitalized Umlaut such as "Ä" is always spelled "Ae" in Switzerland. But it just isn't right in German German and hurts my eyes. Sorry but I can't get myself to cope with this. It is just inconsistent. You use the "ü" in Kurfürst but refrain from using the "ß" in Großer. I fail to see the logic here even if some English sources refrain from using the "ß". Again, I am looking at this from a consistency point of view and not from your sources point of view. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
      • This is new in Chicago, and surprising (to me): Chicago 11.12 says: "Foreign words, phrases or titles that occur in an English-language work must include any special characters that occur in the original language." OTOH, if we're reading the English sources rather than the German ones, my experience has been the same as Parsecboy's, and we've got WP:UE to contend with. And AP Stylebook hasn't changed their position: no diacriticals (see "accent"). - Dank (push to talk) 20:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I reviewed this for GA and believe that it is in pretty good shape. I had another look over it today and only found a small thing, which I changed myself. I therefore support, albeit pending the implementation of Dank's comments above. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I've read over this twice and can find nothing to fault it. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support w/ Comments:
  • 3rd para of "Service History" uses 'enemy' which should be removed to keep the article neutral.
  • "the decidedly close call at Jutland" sounds a little encyclopedic to me. Could it be a "close battle" or a "close fight" instead?
  • The current cite system makes it unclear which "Campbell" ref you are citing each time. Is there some way to make it more clear with each individual ref? —Ed!^(talk) 20:30, 8 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.

---

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Almirante Latorre-class battleship

Nominator(s): Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]}

The class article for the interesting story that is Chile's dreadnoughts. Both were taken over by the UK, one was returned to Chile in 1920, while the other was kept by the UK and converted into an aircraft carrier. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments
  • The section on Almirante Cochrane/Eagle states that the ship was refitted from Oct. 1941 to February 1942, then goes on to say that the ship was torpedoed and sunk in Oct. 1941. The ship article states she was sunk in August 1942. What's going on here?
  • The specifications section seems to be rather light for the class article. Any chance of beefing it up a little more (like Rivadavia)?
  • The quote about Von der Tann needs a citation.
• That's all for now. Parsecboy (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Dates - wow, I screwed up big there, not sure how it happened. Fixed now.
  • Specs - I only have the basic Conway's for a major source. Rivadavia's entry had a lot on technical info... this one, not so much.
  • Quote - citation added. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Looks good now - and there's only so much you can do when the information isn't there. Parsecboy (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - Firstly, the infobox contains bullet points, and we reached a consensus some time ago at Wikiships that this should not be done. Secondly, the "Specifications" section comes last. This section usually comes before the "Service history" section. Gatoclass (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that was my oversight (it was carried over from Almirante Latorre's original infobox). I know how class articles are normally organized, but I'm trying to keep the story's flow intact. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

How would placing the Specs section above the "Service history" section interrupt the flow? It seems to me the natural place to put it - right after the launch and construction details, where it usually goes. It looks very odd being tacked on the end. Gatoclass (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Take a read through of the article in that part. It goes directly from launching -> buying by British. I know it's a bit odd (to me too; I normally put it right after the construction/launch section), but I believe splitting it would be worse. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but I still see no reason why the specs section can't be in the same place as it is for every other ship article on the encyclopedia. Gatoclass (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments I don't have a problem with the placement of the Specifications section. We've been having a problem getting people to look at ship articles at FAC, and part of the problem may be that they fall asleep before they can finish the first section, which comes across as too technical and obscure to many FAC reviewers. It's true that these sections are usually near the top, and it's a reasonable request to be consistent, but it's also a reasonable request to allow for some experimentation to see if we can get a better response from reviewers. - Dank (push to talk) 16:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to propose such a change at Wikiships, you are entitled to do so, but you can be sure of my opposition. When I read an article about something, obviously I want a description of what that something is before I start reading about its history, that is the obvious sequence. If I don't know what it is I'm reading about in the first place, how can I hope to understand anything else about it? I'm sure there are some people who don't like the spec sections but they probably don't like warship articles much to begin with. Gatoclass (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to oppose what SHIPS wants, I'm trying to support what this editor wants; it's not an outrageous request. If this means you're opposing A-class promotion, please say so; I only have time to copyedit the A-class articles that have no current opposition. - Dank (push to talk) 12:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no explicit style guide that dictates where it has to be, and I don't see much difference between the middle and end of the article. Also, FWIW, I hate specification sections but love warships. I don't really care about the specs aside from 'which battleship is more powerful', normally measured by gun size (for right or wrong, that's how they did it). What interests me is the geo-political debates that developed as countries acquired dreadnoughts. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just a thought: we get friction sometimes over the wording of the first sentence of class articles. This one begins: "The Almirante Latorre class was originally a two-ship group ...". If people object again, I think this will work: "There were originally two ships in the Almirante Latorre class ... designed as super-dreadnought battleships ... Almirante Latorre was finished as a battleship, but Almirante Cochrane was converted to an aircraft carrier." - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Interesting thought, but I don't like it as much because it doesn't immediately identify the subject of the article. Is there a way we could reword it while keeping "The Almirante Latorre class ..."? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
    • What you've got seems fine to me, this is just a suggestion in case you need it later on. - Dank (push to talk) 00:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Looking at this again, "built" still doesn't work for me. [The two-ship group of battleships was] "built by the British Armstrong Whitworth for the Chilean Navy. Only one, Almirante Latorre, was finished as a battleship ...". Generally "a battleship was built" means you get a battleship, not something else. Also, I believe acorazados means "battleships", but it's not clear from context whether it means that or "super-dreadnought battleships". - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• "which was much more advanced than her sister": which was closer to completion than her sister - Dank (push to talk)
• "Post-war, she was put": "Postwar" is an adjective, not an adverb, per Websters NWD, and there's no hyphen. "After the war, she was put" - Dank (push to talk)
• "The battleship instigated a 1931 naval mutiny": The crew of the battleship ... - Dank (push to talk)
• "She was scrapped only in 1959.": She was not scrapped until 1959. Also, you need a paragraph break here. (The narrative jumps to a different ship at a different time.) - Dank (push to talk)
• "military operations against natives": It's not easy but it's important to keep up to date on currently approved synonyms for "indigenous"; they tend to vary by country and by decade. "Natives" is probably not the best choice; "the native population" or "the indigenous population" would be better. I don't know the best choice, if there is one. - Dank (push to talk)
• "The genesis of the Almirante Latorre class was in the conflicting": It's perfectly okay to have a topic sentence that's a bit metaphorical, as long as it gives the reader a perspective that makes the paragraph easier to digest, and as long as the meaning of the topic sentence becomes clear by the time the reader finishes the paragraph. This topic sentence wouldn't be my choice, since the reader doesn't know by the end of the paragraph how the conflicts led to the creation of the class. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Chile designated £3,129,500 in 1887 to add to its fleet": Chile added £3,129,500 in 1887 to its fleet budget - Dank (push to talk)
• "A battleship, Capitán Prat, two protected cruisers, and two torpedo boats": The battleship Capitán Prat, two protected cruisers, and two torpedo boats (nonparallel elements in a list) - Dank (push to talk)
• More to come. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• "even after the 1891 civil war": even after Chile's civil war in 1891 (Argentina is mentioned before and after.) - Dank (push to talk)
• "in 1890–91": in 1890 and 1891 - Dank (push to talk)
• "Chile one in 1892, Argentina purchased": Chile ordered one in 1892, Argentina purchased (nonparallel elements in a list) - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• "The two countries alternated cruiser orders: ... Each of these marked a small increase in capabilities from the ship previous.": probably "The two countries alternated orders for increasingly expensive cruisers:". I'm hoping "increase in capabilities" translates to more expensive. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Chile was forced to respond by": Chile responded by. Countries do what they want to do, generally; they often claim that they had no choice, but the claim generally isn't credible. - Dank (push to talk)
• "the American ambassador to Argentina William Paine Lord in 1899": the American ambassador to Argentina, William Paine Lord, in 1899. Appositives are often set off by commas, names especially. - Dank (push to talk)
• "letters of intent with Ansaldo": letters of intent with Italian engineering company Ansaldo (otherwise the readers have to click to know what you're talking about) - Dank (push to talk)
• "The growing dispute concerned the British" "concerned" in the sense of "was relevant to" or "disturbed"? - Dank (push to talk)
• "an eighteen-month advance notice": probably "18 months' advance notice", although there's an argument for "eighteen" - Dank (push to talk)
• "demilitarized": Add link to demilitarization. - Dank (push to talk)
• Okay I'm trying to limit my copyediting time to roughly an hour; take a whack at this, then I'll probably support just the parts I was able to cover (the intro and first subsection). - Dank (push to talk) 21:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dank and apologies for my delay in replying. I fixed all but your alternating comment, as I'm not completely sure they were more expensive – just that each was more powerful than the last. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Now supporting the parts I covered. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Support
  • should ninteenth and twentieth centuries be 19th and 20th centuries respectively per WP:CENTURY?;
  • These sentences are problematic for me: "The crew of the battleship instigated a 1931 naval mutiny, and was kept on patrol during the Second World War. She was not scrapped until 1959." Firstly you are covering nearly tens years in a single sentence which seems to imply causality (i.e. one caused the other), while you might just consider saying "She was scrapped in 1959". Currently it almost sounds like a double negative to me;
  • The phrase "a 1931 naval mutiny" doesn't work for me, may be reword to something like "instigated a naval mutiny in 1931";
  • 'arms race' could be wikilinked;
  • Similiar to my comment for ARA Rivadavia, the reference style seems a little inconsistent. One example is your use of brackets for years in some and not others. Personnally use of a citation template would eliminate such problems but as I said above its up to you. For instance:
    • (NO BRACKETS) Hore, Peter. Battleships of World War I. London: Southwater, 2007. ISBN 1844763773. OCLC 77797289. vs
    • (BRACKETS) Kaldis, William Peter. "Background for Conflict: Greece, Turkey, and the Aegean Islands, 1912–1914." The Journal of Modern History 51, no. 2 (1979), D1119–D1146. JSTOR 1881125. ISSN 0022-2801. OCLC 62219150.
  • Otherwise another excellent article with little to fault it. Anotherclown (talk) 09:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your review! Regarding centuries, no, see WP:ORDINAL
      • Indeed it would seem that either is acceptable. Anotherclown (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I've reworked those sentences.
      • They look good now. Anotherclown (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Changed to "naval mutiny in 1931"
    • Linked.
    • The article is an academic citation style. Please see "Chicago-Style Citation Quick Guide." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not disputing that you're using an academic style, I am merely questioning the inconsistency in the use of brackets around the year in your references. Per my example above in some places you do it and in others you do not. IMO whatever style you choose to use should be consistent (unless of course that is the Chigaco style in which case I withdraw the remark). Thats all I'm getting at. Anotherclown (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, that came across sounding angered, which I am certainly not! Look at the link I gave – whatever their reasons, that is Chicago format. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
          • No worries then. Anotherclown (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support: looks generally fine to me, just a couple of minor quibbles:
  • Citations # 12, 16 and 18 appear to be the same and should be consolidated with a WP:NAMEDREFS (as it has been done already with some others);
  • Citations # 17 and 18 appear to be the same (as per above);
  • Citations # 55 and 57 appear to be the same (as per above). AustralianRupert (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for looking at this, AR. All are now fixed! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
      • No worries at all. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:12, 3 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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 09:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Operation Crimp

Nominator(s): Anotherclown (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it was one of the key early engagements of the Australian involvement in the Vietnam War and I believe that it meets the criteria. Many thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Looks very good to me. I have the following comments:
  • there are no dab links (no action required);
  • images lack alt text, you might consider adding it in (suggestion only);
    • Added now. Thanks for your patience (I'm really lazy when it comes to alt text!). Anotherclown (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • there is one external link that is reported to be broken and needs to be fixed: [1];
    • I'm afraid I cannot resolve this - for some reason google has removed a number of editions of the Evening Independent from January 1966, including this one. Some are there but this one is now gone. Anotherclown (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      • No dramas. I tried Web Archive and for some reason that wouldn't work, either. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks for trying nonetheless. Anotherclown (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • the image caption in the infobox should be tweaked, "Sapper" shouldn't be capitalised, as in this case it is just like "soldier", i.e. an improper noun;
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I suggest wikilinking "battalion" on first mention, i.e in the Background section "nine additional US battalions...";
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Citation # 24 "Tunnel Rats", publisher information should probably be added;
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • is there a page number for the Mangold and Penycate 2005 citation (# 66), or is it just to the whole work?
    • Good point, I've had to order the book to resolve this so it may require a week or so. Anotherclown (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      • That wasn't necessary, but no dramas. The other half might have a drama with it, though. ;-)AustralianRupert (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Its about $11 so its no big imposition. I don't really have the time to go to the library plus I want the book anyway! Anotherclown (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Added the page number from Mangold and Penycate now. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References, "Mangold, Tom; John Penycate" is formatted differently to "MacGregor, Sandy; Thomson, Jimmy";
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References "3rd ed." for Bradley is different to "Second ed." for Dennis and for Horner;
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References, the locations for the works cited might need more details, e.g. States, particularly for Maryborough, St Leonards, etc. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support: my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- Gave this a thorough review at GA, which it passed, and since I recommended there that it advance to ACR, I can hardly say no now! Re-read to check recent changes and am satisfied that prose, structure, coverage, referencing, and supporting materials all meet A-Class standard -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support I have no complaints on this one either. --Kumioko (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• SupportXavierGreen (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Belated support. Notes will be on the talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 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.

---

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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 08:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the Bowling Alley

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!^(talk) 03:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Support
  • No dab links, all external links check out and all images have alt text (no action required);
  • Citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required either);
  • I've made a few changes so please check and revert if required;
    • They look good, thanks. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • First sentence in the Taegu section is a little repeatative: "In the meantime, Eighth Army commander Lieutenant General Walton Walker had established Taegu as the Eighth Army's headquarters". Maybe reword as such: "In the meantime Taegu was established as the Eight Army's headquarters, under the command of Lieutenant General Walton Walker" or something similar;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Should "mid-august" be capitalised (i.e. mid-August)? (US forces assemble section);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure 'Carpet bombing campaign' needs to be capitalised (Deadlock section);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Use of the term 'enemy' needs to be avoided (August 18 attack);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The following sentence seems a little awkward: "The tanks and self-propelled guns, firing rapidly, approached the American positions." Perhaps it could be reworded to: "The tanks and self-propelled guns approached the American positions, firing rapidly.";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Figures less than 10 should be written in full i.e. five not 5 per WP:MOSNUM (see Aftermath section); and
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • In places you refer to "Colonel Michaelis"; AFAIK once the individual has been introduced at the first instance with his full name and rank he should then only be referred to by his last name, i.e. Michaelis (not sure of the MOS reference for that though). Anotherclown (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I think I have fixed all instances of this. I have addressed all of your comments. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Cheers. Striking all comments and adding my support now. Well done IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:Support:
  • in the lead, "What followed was a fierce series of battles..." or "What followed was a series of fierce battles..."?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the lead, abbreviations of ROK, UN, US etc should be formally introduced, e.g. "Republic of Korea (ROK)";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the infobox, there is no strength value for the UN forces, I suggest adding "Unknown" as a placeholder;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • the abbreviation "NK" should be formally introduced before being used in a heading;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the US forces assemble section, "platoon" could be wikilinked on first mention (same for company, division, battalion, batteries etc. where appropriate);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the NK forces assemble section, "the poplar-lined Taegu-Sangju road ran" there should be an endash per WP:DASH;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the August 18 attack section, "...directed this artillery fire on the North Koreans with a T-34 tank within 50 yards (46 m) of his position" - reword to "in a T-34 tank" perhaps - otherwise it sounds like Millett directed fire with a tank rather than on it;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Stalemate section (and others), "120-mm. mortar shells" - not sure about the presentation here with the hyphen and full stop, I think the MOS would say it should be "120 mm" (using a non breaking space);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Stalemate "antitank" or "anti-tank" - not sure if the first is US English or not, but it doesn't quite look right to me (I might be wrong, though);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the August 21 attack section, the first two sentences start with "That evening" or "Later that evening" - is there a way to reword so that there is some variation?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the NK flanking moves section, "UN planes..." might sound better as "UN aircraft...";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the NK flanking moves section, "main supply road" or "main supply route"? (the later has an article that could be linked);
    • Fixed. 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the NK flanking moves section, "13 76-mm guns emplaced..." this the numerical values here are difficult to read, the MOS would allow "thirteen 76 mm" here, which would make it easier on the eye;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the NK flanking moves section, I suggest wikilink "commissioned" to "Officer (armed forces)";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Final moves section, "US 23rd Regiment" should this be "23rd Infantry" - as this is how they are previously referred to?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Aftermath, "The North Korean's total casualties..." the apostrophe is in the wrong place, I think. It should be "...North Koreans' total..." because it is plural here;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Aftermath, there is a mixture of presentation style for dates, for example "18 to 25 August" as opposed to August 12–25". Either Day Month Year or Month Day, Year is fine, but consistency is required;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References, if possible, location details could be added to the works;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References, the 2010 Millett work should have an endash for the year range. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed. I have responded to everything. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- Coverage, prose, referencing, structure and supporting materials look good -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support the intro and first section, which I just copyedited. - Dank (push to talk) 04:37, 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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 08:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō

Nominator(s): Cla68 (talk) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the criteria for consideration for promotion to A-class status. The article is a co-nomination between me and Sturmvogel 66. Cla68 (talk) 08:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - from the top
  • Infobox and Lead
    • In the opening sentence of the lead, I'd maybe reverse the two bits, noting first that she was the first purpose-built aircraft carrier in the world.
    • Do we know where she was scrapped? It might be good to mention that in the lead.
      • The location is given in the last paragraph. I don't really think that the location is important enough for the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Done. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Design and Description
    • Hōshō was the second warship after the British Hermes to be designed from the beginning as a carrier and the first to be launched.[4] - there's something awkward about this wording. I'd maybe rephrase to "Hosho was the second warship after the British Hermes to be designed from the beginning as an aircraft carrier, but was completed and launched earlier than Hermes". I'm not entirely sure what to do with this particular sentence, but it's very difficult to read.
    • Could you maybe explain what the revisions that were forced by Argus and Furious observation were?
      • Yeah, let me take this exam and I'll dig it out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
      • First suggestion done. Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I've clarified the design process, is it clearer now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Service
    • When it specifies that she was attached to the Main Body at the Pearl Harbor attack, could we possibly specify which battleships they were? It mentions eight but I can only think of six (the two Ise, two Fuso and two Nagato, the Kongos were w/ the strike force or w/ Kondo near Singapore).
    • Similarly, the composition of the Main Body at Midway in terms of heavy ships would be helpful.
    • What exactly is a "special guard ship"?
      • I have no idea, but perhaps Cla68 does.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Done. You're right, there appears to have been only six battleships in the Main Body during Pearl Harbor. I've notified Mr. Tully that the TROM might need a check on that number. The sources don't explain what a "Special Guard Ship" is. In my opinion, it means a high-sounding name was given to a large ship that has been dedicated to local, last ditch, likely suicidal, defense of the Japanese homeland, but my opinion doesn't count since I'm not a reliable source. Cla68 (talk) 10:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Other than that, superb work! Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 17:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - all my concerns have been addressed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 21:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- performed a light copyedit but I really see no issues here, structure/prose/referencing/coverage/illustrations all appear fine -- well done! One minor thing, you should probably be consistent linking publishing locations in the bibliography -- couple are (twice in one case), most aren't, should be all or nothing (but without dups). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I've deleted all links.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • no dabs, ext links work (no action required);
  • Check the mark up coding for Citation # 23 "; Watts, p. 169; Evans, p. 315; Parshall and Tully, p. 7" - seems to be an out of place punctuation mark;
  • Citation # 40: " Parshall and Tully, pp. 385-393; Tully" - should have an endash;
  • some of your citations end with full stops and some don't (e.g. Citation # 28 and 29) - should be consistent;
  • the titles in the References should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles, e.g. the Evans work should be Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887–1941";
  • some of the works in the References should have endashes added to the year ranges in the titles (e.g. Howarth, Jentschura). AustralianRupert (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Done. Cla68 (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. Periods in last two captions: see WP:MOSCAPTION. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done. Cla68 (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• "purpose-designed": "purpose-built" and similar are chiefly British. The most common American translation is "special-purpose", but in this case maybe: "... the first ship ever commissioned that was designed and built as an aircraft carrier." - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done. Cla68 (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• "The ship, commissioned in 1922, was ...": Commissioned in 1922, the ship was. As a rule of thumb, minimize the number of pauses and parenthetical statements. (However, don't move a parenthetical phrase to the beginning if it's not short and the readers might be surprised when they get to the subject.) - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done. Cla68 (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• "testing ... air operations techniques": It would be better to say what techniques you're talking about. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done. Cla68 (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• "during its career", "after her return": either gender is fine, but be consistent. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done. Cla68 (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• "The small size of the ship and its assigned airgroups (usually around 15 aircraft), however, limited the effectiveness of its contributions to combat operations.": not sure what to do with this; probably deleting the sentence would be best, and stick "small ship" and "usually around 15 aircraft" somewhere in this paragraph or the first paragraph. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Well, the size of the ship was significant into why she was placed in reserve status after the early stages of the Sino-Japan War. I added a transitional phrase to the next sentence to show why that factoid is included where it is. Cla68 (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• "During World War II the only battle in which Hōshō participated was the Battle of Midway in June 1942 in which ...": not sure how to reword it, but it's generally a bad idea to have "in which" twice. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. Cla68 (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• "survived the war having suffered only minor damage": survived the war with only minor damage. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done. Cla68 (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• "The original requirement for Hōshō was for a seaplane tender based on the design of the British ...": probably "Hōshō was planned as a seaplane tender like the British ...". - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done. Cla68 (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• "with a flying-off deck forward and the ability to carry 32 aircraft with four ...": Less precise but shorter and probably better is "with a flying-off deck forward, 32 aircraft, and four ...". - Dank (push to talk) P.S. Or "thirty-two aircraft, and four ..." per the suggestion for parallelism in WP:ORDINAL ... I never know what will fly, haha. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done. Cla68 (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• "afterwards": afterward in AmEng, afterwards in BritEng per Chicago 5.220. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "reports were received from an observer of the landing trials conducted on Furious and others who inspected HMS Argus, the world's first flush-decked aircraft carrier, that forced the revision ...": "that forced" is too far away from what it's modifying, "reports". - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done. Cla68 (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• "The flight deck was modified as one continuous deck by deleting the superstructure and the funnels were moved to one side, turning the ship into an aircraft carrier rather than a seaplane tender.": probably "The superstructure was removed and the funnels were moved to one side to create an unobstructed flight deck, and the ship was reclassified as an aircraft carrier." Some don't like the passive voice, and you could say who's doing the reclassifying if you like. - Dank (push to talk)
• "She was given a full-length flight deck and a small island.": This comes right after the above, so it's not clear whether you're talking about a new refit or just describing the same refit in different words, which probably isn't necessary. - Dank (push to talk)
  • I've combined and partially rewritten the two paragraphs to address the 3 points above. How does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "The funnels did not protrude from the side of the hull and the flight deck had to be narrowed to accommodate them.": I can't get an image of how this works. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Deleted as extraneous detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Hōshō's designed speed was reduced to 25 knots": My understanding is that you don't get a reduction in speed by intending to reduce speed, it's a byproduct of something else, such as extra width or extra armor. - Dank (push to talk)
  • They just reduced the required speed to 25 knots as 30 knots was no longer thought desireable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "a overall length": an - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "take-off": takeoff (much more common in AmEng per Webster's NWD and Merriam-Webster Collegiate) - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "conn": a little informal, at least at first occurrence - Dank (push to talk)
  • Changed to bridge.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "well forward, on the starboard side and ...": parenthetical phrases need either two commas or none. None would probably be better here. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "their light weight meant that they were vulnerable": their light weight made them vulnerable - Dank (push to talk)
  • Much better phrasing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "a collapsible crane intended to load aircraft": "Intended" always raises at least the possibility that it was never actually used for the purpose. If you don't want to suggest that, then "a collapsible crane for loading aircraft" is better. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "The flight deck, unlike those on Royal Navy carriers, was superimposed on the ship's hull rather than constructed as a strength deck supporting the carrier's hull structure": "The flight deck was superimposed on the ship's hull and did not support the carrier's hull structure, as on Royal Navy carriers." (Was this true for all RN carriers?). - Dank (push to talk)
  • Evans may be wrong here as the only existing RN carrier that might actually use the flight deck as a strength deck is Argus. But I'll have to check.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Both Argus and Hermes, the only two real RN carriers in existence both used the flight deck as a strength deck.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• "nine small aircraft like fighters": up to nine small aircraft, such as fighters. (Comma before a non-restrictive phrase.) - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "16.5 by 14 meters (54 ft 2 in × 45 ft 10 in)": I'm not sure, but "by" in the first and "x" in the second seems unusual. - Dank (push to talk)
  • I'm not sure what's going on here as the code is identical in both cases.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "six large aircraft like torpedo bombers as well as ...": six large aircraft, such as torpedo bombers, as well as. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "(34.0 by 25.8 ft) in size": not a big deal, but it makes sense to me to reserve "in size" for the places where some readers might not be sure; here, you don't need it. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "14 cm/50 3rd Year Type guns": It might be helpful to write a new section for our article on the 20 cm/50 3rd Year Type naval gun, and link to that section. Up to you. - Dank (push to talk)
• (down the page) "0530": needs at least a colon. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Okay I'm trying to keep it to an hour per article, so I'll stop after the intro and the first section. Give it a shot, then I can come back and support just the part I've covered. - Dank (push to talk) 00:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• You don't need to go to the trouble of giving me links, I'll just pull up the diff of everything at once to check it. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 04:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Supporting the parts I covered, but the second sentence in the intro should be broken into two sentences, and remember not to have non-parallel items in a comma-delimited list. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 6 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.

---

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Magersfontein

Nominator(s): Farawayman (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Socrates2008 and I have been doing a lot of work on this article and we believe it now meets A-Class criteria. Review and opinions would be most appreciated. Farawayman (talk) 08:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments See WP:SCROLL. - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Done Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• "at Magersfontein hills": either "at Magersfontein Hills" (if that's a proper noun) or "in the hills near Magersfontein" (if it's not). - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Done Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• The prose is 50kB, so the lead probably needs a little more to adequately summarize this article, per WP:LEAD. - Dank (push to talk)

• Expanded Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• I fixed the link for Black Week. - Dank (push to talk)

• Thank you

• "foreign volenteers": volunteers - Dank (push to talk)

• Fixed Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• "decimated": this literally means originally meant the loss of a tenth, but many readers these days think it means "annihilated", and I see from the text that you're going for the latter sense. Best not to use the word at all, since people aren't sure what it means any more. - Dank (push to talk)

• Dictionary definition seems to fit, but have changed one of the instances. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point, and I should have been clear that this one was a personal judgment call, because I can't find a recent style guide that dislikes the word. The "deci-" in the word and the original meaning tend, IMO, to confuse the issue enough so that people aren't positive what it means. Even without that problem, the meaning varies in practice from "more than half" to "all but a tenth" to "almost all". In this case, if I understand correctly, all but seven were casualties. - Dank (push to talk) 13:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Nevertheless, his army drove the Boers out of their defensive positions at Belmont, Graspan and the Modder River, and advanced to within 16 miles (26 km) of Kimberley. The Battle of Modder River temporarily exhausted both sides, with the British having lost a thousand men, killed and wounded in these three battles.": don't jump around. That is, you mention 3 engagements, then the result of the advance, then you mention the last engagement, then the consequences of all 3 engagements. It's easier to digest if you keep it linear, something like: "Nevertheless, his army drove the Boers out of their defensive positions at Belmont, Graspan and the Modder River, at the cost of a thousand casualties. Both sides were exhausted, and the British stopped their advance within 16 miles (26 km) of Kimberley." - Dank (push to talk)

• Done Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Methuen was forced to delay at the river crossing for several days while supplies and reinforcements were brought forward and the railway bridge (which the Boers had previously blown up) was repaired. In addition, the need for troops to protect his extended supply line from Boer sabotage was essential.": I think this is what you mean, but I'm not sure: "Methuen was forced to delay at the river crossing for several days while supplies and reinforcements were brought forward, a railway bridge destroyed by the Boers was repaired, and fresh troops were brought in to protect his extended supply line from Boer sabotage." - Dank (push to talk)

• Rewritten Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• "The Boers in turn, were badly shaken ...": I can't be sure since this is British English; "in turn" usually has a sense of sequential actions in AmEng. "The Boers were also badly shaken ..." - Dank (push to talk)

• Done Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Also at Ladysmith": At Ladysmith. - Dank (push to talk)

• DoneSocrates2008 (Talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Their total force numbered 8,500 fighters, with camp-followers ...": not sure if you're including the camp followers in the total. (No hyphen in "camp followers" in AmEng, not sure about BritEng.) - Dank (push to talk)

• DoneSocrates2008 (Talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• "crescent shaped": crescent-shaped

• SortedSocrates2008 (Talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• "straddling both the road and the railway line, to which Methuen's advance was bound": "both" is a tough word to get right. Roughly speaking, if the reader expects that the advance would be able to come either way and wants to know that both are blocked, "both" is good. If the reader doesn't have that mental picture, then "both" is probably redundant here. "Bound" doesn't sound like a good choice to me, but it might be the BritEng language barrier again. And I wouldn't say my destination was a road if I was walking along the road. - Dank (push to talk)

• DoneSocrates2008 (Talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• "was 2-mile (3.2 km) long": was 2 miles (3.2 km) long - Dank (push to talk)

• DoneSocrates2008 (Talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• "North-Easterly": north-easterly (I think). - Dank (push to talk) P.S. Looking at the map of the battlefield, I'd describe the direction of the fence as north-northeast. - Dank (push to talk) 22:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Done - moved the fence to run north-northeast! Farawayman (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• This was almost all in the first section and first subsection, so there's more to do here than I have time for. You can ask for copyeditors (and you may need to offer to swap favors) at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests or WT:MILHIST or on this page.

Done - requested a further independent ce from the Guild. Farawayman (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll check back later. - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I will be starting copy edits tonight and will try to be done some time tomorrow. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Diannaa - thanks for the Copy Edit! Farawayman (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. I did another pass today, and also tidied up the references. Don't be surprised though if Dank finds some more stuff to do; he is wise. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 17:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Truth. Here's an actual photo. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought you looked more like this. I must have a bad internet connection. -Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• What's the thinking on "Scholtz Nek (28°54′42″S 24°42′27″E) and Spytfontein (28°52′56″S 24°41′00″E)"? In general, if people want technical details on anything, such as the coordinates of a location, aren't they going to follow the link to the location? I was watching Charlie Rose's recent interview of Jimmy Wales tonight; the one thing Charlie complained about was too much extraneous stuff (if I understood him rightly). Do these locations fail notability requirements for a stub? - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

People seem to have different opinions on this - personally I don't mind it, but others seem to dislike it. There are many FA articles that use this format, but if it troubles you, a note might make this more acceptable (e.g. Siege of Kimberley) Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please move it to a note. See MOS:ICON: "Do not use icons in general article prose." Chicago doesn't approve either, although I can't find a good quote at the moment. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Coordinates moved from text to notes section as recommended. Concur with the logic and the need for the move. Farawayman (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've done another copyedit of the introduction, the first section and the subsection after that; new problems were introduced in recent editing. I can now:
• support just those sections. I haven't looked at the rest, except for the collapse-box that's still there and shouldn't be per WP:SCROLL. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed the "Orders" section which used to be in a collapsible text box. The gist of the orders are already contained in the text in the "British Plan" section. Farawayman (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Looks quite good to me. I have the following comments, which are mainly just style and presentation nitpicks:
  • is there are way to split the lead into maybe three paragraphs? Currently the first paragraph is quite long;
    • Fixed by Socrates. Farawayman (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Reinforcements arrive section, this sentence needs a citation: "The gap created by the hurried withdrawal of the Highland Brigade was filled by the Gordons and the Scots Guards";
    • Fixed. Farawayman (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Strategic consequences section, "politicians in England" - should this be "politicians in Britain?";
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Footnotes subsection, some of the notes end with full stops and some don't - should be consistent (I suggest that they should all have them);
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Footnotes subsection, I suggest replacing <references group="Note"/> with {{Reflist|group=Note}} as this will mean the Footnotes appear the same size as the Citations;
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Citations sometimes you have "Conan-Doyle" and then other times "Conan Doyle" (hyphen or no hyphen) - should be consistent;
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Citations some have years while others don't, is there a reason for this (some editors only use years to differentiate mulitple works by the same author);
    • All citations standardised to include year of publication. Farawayman (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Citation # 26 "Gale & Polden, p. 61" - the full bibliographic details don't appear in the References section;
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Citations you have "Gale & Polden" and then "Gale and Polden" - should be consistent
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Citation #27 "Pakenham, p. 203" has no date, but Citation # 11 "Pakenham (1979), p. 199" has a date - should be consistent if the same work;
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Citation # 50 "De Villiers", but in the References "de Villiers" - needs consistent capitalisation;
    • This is a quirk in Afrikaans/Dutch where the "De" is capitalised when then first name is not mentioned, but is lowercase when preceeded by a first name. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References, I suggest differentiating the two Maurice works (both of which have the same year of publication) by using "(1998a)" and "(1998b)" in both the short citations and the full bibliographic details;
    • Fixed. Farawayman (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References Tufnell appears out of alphabetical order;
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References section, the Kruger work's title should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles, e.g. "Good-bye Dolly Grey: The story of the Boer War" should be "Good-bye Dolly Grey: The Story of the Boer War"
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References section, the Knight et al work should have an endash in the title for the year range, i.e "1876–1902";
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References section, the two websites (Pipetunes and BritishBattles) shouldn't be listed, they should simply be linked through the Citations where they are reffed with inline citations;
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • at the end of the References section there is a large amount of whitespace on my screen, this is because of the commented out list of works not specifically cited. I sugest just simply removing these works, or adding them so they appear in the Further reading section;
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Further reading section, Cowan appears out of alphabetical order. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Commments:

Enjoyed the article! A few minor comments:

Advance to attack:

• "A drizzle started..." "In preparation for the attack, the soldiers bivouacked in heavy rain..." It would be clearly possible to have both drizzle in one place and heavy rain 3 miles away, but it read slightly oddly, particularly as later in the section "the rain increased to a downpour".
  • Anomaly corrected. Farawayman (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• "the lyddite explosions" - this is the only mention of lyddite in the article; worth either explaining what lyddite was, or linking the term.
  • Valid point - linked. Farawayman (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• Warning, a really petty quibble coming(!): "The thunderstorm and the high iron ore content of the surrounding hills played havoc with compasses of the officers appointed to navigate" - I think it played havoc with all of the compasses, not just those belonging to the navigators! :)
  • Changed to say played havoc with compasses and navigation. Farawayman (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• " the British had no time to reform from their compact quarter columns into fighting formation" > "a fighting formation"?
  • Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Battle:

• "but this action was soon blocked by re-deploying Boers" - does this mean it was blocked by Boers, who happened to be redeploying, or by the Boer general deciding to re-deploy Boers?
  • Clarified, "...blocked by the re-deployment of Boer elements." Farawayman (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• " The only movement at that time was Lt. Lindsay, who managed to bring the Seaforth's Maxim forward to provide a degree of support fire." I'm reading this as Lt Lindsay doing this personally, on his own; am I understanding this right?
  • Ambiguity clarified - "....team lead by Lt Lindsay....." Farawayman (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• "Methuen ordered all available artillery to provide support fire" > "supporting fire"?
  • Not sure if this is correct, "provide support fire" is an accepted military term? Second opinion would be appreciated please. Farawayman (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Changed to fire support. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "However, as with the preliminary barrage..." Worth moving the "however" to the middle of the sentence.
  • Concur - modification made. Farawayman (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Scandinavian volunteers:

• I found the first paragraph, whilst useful background, jarred with the flow of the battle narrative. It might fit better earlier in the article?
  • Concur - re-stated this initial section on the formation of the Corps as a note, where it originally was. Farawayman (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• "Approximately half of the corps (refer Order of battle)..." > "refer to the Order of battle"?
  • Fixed. Farawayman (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Losses:

• "the Highland Brigade amassed a killed, wounded, and missing loss of 747 men." This read oddly to me. Could you say "suffered total casualties of 747 men"?
  • Re-stated to make it read more clearly, but retained reference to killed, wounded and missing - because "total casualty" figures do not necessarily always include all three of these categories. Farawayman (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• The poem probably needs a comment in the main text. e.g. "Criticism was published in the national papers, for example..."
  • Added an introductory sentence. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• I particularly liked the picture of the observation balloon, by the way - fascinating photo!

Hchc2009 (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Hchc2009: Thanks for these pertinent comments! Farawayman (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Support, by the way! Hchc2009 (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments by NJR_ZA (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks good and a very nice read.
  • Scandinavian volunteers (refer to the Order of battle) was ordered hold a forward position > ordered to hold

    Fixed. Farawayman (talk) 05:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Had another read through and it looks good. You have addressed all the issues raised here. Good balance of information between the parties involved. Prose is easy to read and well referenced. All the major events and people relevant to the battle is covered. ---NJR_ZA (talk) 05:52, 4 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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 09:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sack of Amorium

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

One of the most important and memorable events of the late Byzantine-Arab Wars. The article passed GA in early October, and I feel it meets the A-class criteria. Constantine ✍ 08:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Chicago gives its blessing to "r." at "Scholarly abbreviations", and I've added a link to reign, which explains the abbreviation. - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Holy $!@$%$, this is good writing. Although the lead is perfect for what it is, WP:LEAD recommends more than one paragraph for an article of this length, so at least consider whether you want to add a few sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• "Seeking divine favour, and in response to iconophile plots, in June 833 Theophilos reinstated harsh suppression of the iconophiles.": my British English is crap so I can't say if this is right or wrong. In AmEng, 2 unrelated phrases before the subject is just a little uncomfortable, and 3 is "right out" (just to prove my introduction to BritEng was Monty Python :). If I were the writer, I'd move "in June 833" to the end. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• [the coins were] "portraying him in the traditional Roman manner": I'm not certain what you mean ... was the traditional manner the issuing of the coins, or the images on the coins, or the way he was dressed? - Dank (push to talk) 20:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• "many women had been raped by some of Theophilos' Khurramites": odds are it would be better to delete either "many" or "some of", but I don't have the source so I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 23:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• A general point concerning but, however, while, although, etc. Chicago, §5.206, recommends against something like "He went to school, but he left his lunch behind", because there's no contradiction between going to school and leaving your lunch behind. What's meant is something like "He went to school, intending to have lunch there, but he left his lunch behind." That is: don't insert but, however, while, although, etc. unless you explicitly state the two ideas that are in opposition. Chicago says that if the sentence holds together with and, then but is almost always the wrong word. - Dank (push to talk) 02:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• What made me think of this was "While Theophilos returned home in triumph". Btw, is this saying that there were celebrations or honors of some kind, or just that he won all his engagements? - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• "the city was strategically located": I understand what it means to say a unit or ship was "strategically located", but since cities can't be moved around (easily), I'm not sure what this means. Are we talking about a defensible location, good supply routes, good natural resources, or something else? - Dank (push to talk) 02:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• "was attributed by Byzantine writers to his sorrow over the city's loss" needs a citation at the end of that sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Again, excellent writing. I've done some copyediting, and I'll support after these few points are addressed. - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for taking time to review this, and for the appreciative remarks. Always pleased to meet another Monty Pythons fan ;) I fixed/clarified the easy points 2, 6 and 8. On the lede, I am not sure whether expanding it would serve any purpose. I could add a few sentences or split it up, but it wouldn't really add anything to it, unless there is some major point that I have missed. On the coins, the "triumphant emperor" motif and the legitimization of a ruler through military success was a typically Roman mode of portrayal, although minor details like clothes etc changed. The caption also makes clear (hopefully) that the whole dress shown, and in particular the toupha, was reserved for triumphal occasions. I have changed the wording a bit, but remain open to suggestions here. On the rapes, the sources state that a number of Khurramites, on their own initiative, raped many of the captive women. I reworded it a bit, but again, I am open to suggestions. On Amorium's location, it was strategically important because of the geography of Anatolia: a large plateau surrounded by lowlands, where most of the agriculture, trade and population were (and still are) concentrated. Amorium (along with Ancyra to the north and Iconium to the south) controlled one of the major routes to the western lowlands, and sat near a major node in the road network. I hope to clarify this further when I update my maps of Anatolia to include the road network. I will also go through the article again for the "buts" and "howevers". Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Per Chicago, while is the wrong word when it's not clear whether it means "although" or "at the same time as"; I made an edit to clarify, but please change it if it's wrong. I'm happy with the lead section; others might not be. I think it would be helpful to repeat in the article what you're saying here about Amorium, given that you want to make the point about its strategic location. The "buts" are fine now.

• Support. Fine article. - Dank (push to talk) 16:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I can't find much to fault this article. I have the following comments for the review:
  • There are two dab links that need investigation: [2];
  • ext links work, alt text is present and images seem appropriately licenced (no action);
  • could an OCLC number be added to the Vasiliev work? They can usually be found at Worldcat.org;
  • could an ISSN be added to the Rekaya work? AustralianRupert (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Dabs fixed, issn and oclc numbers added. Constantine ✍ 08:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Nice and well-written article. I don't know whether this has to be corrected but probably there have to be full-stops in the sentences under the pictures and the second link to the Madrid Skylitzes in the last image should be removed. I don't know whether there are such requirements though. --Gligan (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

  See WP:MOSCAPTION. - Dank (push to talk) 13:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Any further comments/suggestions? Constantine ✍ 17:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - wow, what an article, and what a pleasure to read.
  • You say that Amorium's walls were "strong." Why was this?
  • "The sack of Amorium was one of the most devastating events in living memory of the Byzantines. " -- in 'living' memory? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Rewrote the two sentences. The city's walls were remarkably long and well-built, at places up to 6 m thick. When I find a good citation for that, I'll re-add it. Constantine ✍ 12:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your tweaks, they were helpful. To make Amorium more easy to find, I considered implementing a map using {{Image label}} or {{Annotated image}}, but was not very satisfied with the result. Constantine ✍ 13:45, 29 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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 13:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Leslie Groves

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... Leslie Groves of Manhattan project fame. Mostly a trial balloon for some nuclear related articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the lead might be too long. It is currently five paragraphs, but I think that the maximum is four per WP:LEAD. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I've trimmed it a little and merged two paragraphs, so there are now only four. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Comments: I've taken a longer look at the article now and can't find much to fault. Other than these couple, I think this is an excellent article:
  • there are no dab links, ext links work, alt text is present (no action required);
  • the page ranges in the Notes should have endashes per WP:DASH;
    • I fixed these myself as it seemed minor. I used a script, if this is an issue, please just feel free to revert. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • most of the images seem correctly licenced, although I'm a little uncertain about "File:K-25 Aerial.jpg". Is there anything that can categorically prove that it is in fact a government image? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • It appears to be part of a series of photographs taken by the DOE shortly before the building was demolished in 2008. I could not find the original online but found this picture which is credited to DOE. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Should be okay for A class, but it might be more of an issue at FAC. Not sure, sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support -- good to see this subject given a worthy article; made a few minor copyedits but generally prose seems fine, as do structure, detail, referencing and supporting materials -- well done, as usual. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Support
  • The citation error tool reports one error - apparently multiple references are using the same name 'Fine&Remington, pp. 663-664' (a very minor issue though); and
    • Corrected Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Unless I'm missing it, in the 'Manhattan Project' section I don't believe you actually state what that project was (i.e. a project to develop atomic weapons). It is certainly implied but maybe a single sentence in the first paragraph describing its aim might be useful to readers with less knowledge of the subject?
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Other than that this is another excellent article, with very little to fault it. Anotherclown (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • All issues resolved, happy to support. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments I think there might be value in adding a note to military brat saying, at a minimum, "See also Military_brat_(U.S._subculture)#Linguistic_reclamation", so that people will understand not just the usage but why it's okay to put it in the second sentence of a biography. OTOH, Hawkeye and others here have written a lot more (and a lot more authoritatively) on military matters than I have, so I don't know. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No thoughts? Without a footnote, I prefer "As the son of a United States Army chaplain, Groves lived at a number of Army posts." I made the edit; feel free to revert or discuss. - Dank (push to talk) 23:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• I changed one however to a but; copyeditors, see Chicago 5.207. Btw, I'm reading nothing but glowing praise for Chicago (16th edition), even from people I wouldn't expect to praise it. - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Anyone mind if I change ", Jr" to "Jr." per Chicago 6.47 and 10.19? - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. In Australian English we don't use the dot. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm trying to get a feel for how much of what I've learned at SHIPS translates to MILHIST generally. Am I right that an article about the US military should be converted to AmEng sometime before it passes ACR? - Dank (push to talk) 14:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
      • No, but in this case I deliberately wrote the article in American English. All I meant was that doing so means that the automated spell check et al doesn't work any more, so I have to rely on my own eyes and those of the reviewing editors. Occasionally I learn something new about American English. So thanks for that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• I need some help on "so" and "therefore" (search for " so " and " therefore "). I know I've seen discussions in style guides and elsewhere that both require that one element appears to logically follow from the other, but I can't find anything useful in AP Stylebook, the index of Chicago, or WT:MOS. Anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• I can't tell how many people we're talking about here: "In attendance were Captain Clarence Renshaw, one of Groves' assistants, Major Hugh J. Casey, the chief of the Construction Division's Design and Engineering Section, and George Bergstrom, a former president of the American Institute of Architects." - Dank (push to talk) 01:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Added semicolons Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• This is too much for one sentence: "Groves was impressed with Oppenheimer's grasp of what would be required and became convinced that the scientist was the right and the only man to run the laboratory, although no one agreed with him in 1942 when Oppenheimer had no administrative experience and, unlike other potential candidates, no Nobel Prize."
  • Split sentence in two. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• "Oppenheimer's brilliant, charismatic leadership was decisive in creating workable designs and getting them transformed into usable bombs.": laying it on a little thick, and it's not supported by any facts or citations in this article ... at least, not that I can tell from the micro-snippet from Racing for the bomb at Gbooks. - Dank (push to talk) 05:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC) P.S. I'm not saying we shouldn't say this ... it's something that I've seen before, and it's important ... just that I think it would be best either to spend more time on it and drag in some supporting material from Oppenheimer's article, or else pare the statement back a bit. One option would be to start a new subsection as an excuse to stick in a hatnote pointing people to the Oppenheimer article for more. - Dank (push to talk) 05:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I tweaked it; see what you think. I know you've got a PhD in military history and I don't mean to comment here on what constitutes good history or good writing in general; this is a comment on my interpretation of V and NPOV. In an article about X who appoints Y, it's fine to say that Y was good at something; the relevance to X is clear. Saying that Y was fantastic at or indispensable to something would generally require supporting and balancing text and citations, and that's usually too much of a digression in the article on X. One possibility would be a footnote saying something like "for more about Oppenheimer's contribution to the success of the program, see [section in his article]". - Dank (push to talk) 14:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• In one gsearch hit[3]), an "AA-3" priority rating seems to have something to do with stocking 90 days worth of inventory. I can't find an article on Wikipedia that covers the AAA or AA-3 rating. Can you say something about what an AAA rating gave the project? - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No, the newspaper article just called for them to get an AA-3 in order to build up their inventories. I've slipped in a paragraph lifted from the Manhattan Project article (still under construction). Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• "These enemies eventually succeeded in drastically reducing Groves' power and authority ...": I'm not going to take a position, but some would say that NPOV requires something more, such as a specific action supported by a citation. - Dank (push to talk) 23:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Re-wrote this part. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 22:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, great work by Hawkeye. I'll keep an eye on this page in case anyone wants to take a stab at some of my questions. - Dank (push to talk) 23:43, 7 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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 12:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Black Friday (1945)

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

I've re-written and greatly expanded this article over the last week (with Dapi89 and Ian Rose also adding improvements) and think that it may now meet the A class criteria. Any comments or suggestions for further improvements would, of course, be very welcome. Nick-D (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support
  • Checked for dabs, broken external links, and alt text -- fixed one dab and the rest were fine, so no action required.
  • All images appear appropriately licensed.
  • My improvements to this were very minor, just a light copyedit and a few suggestions following my B-Class assessment, when I reviewed in depth.
  • I've checked all subsequent edits and apart from a couple of minor tweaks on my part, all appear fine.
  • Prose, structure, detail, citations/references, and supporting materials therefore all look good to me -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that Ian Nick-D (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comment - article looks very good, and just a quick comment from me for now. Up to you whether you want to add it in or not, but Milson was awarded a Bar to his Distinguished Service Order for his part in the assault on the Fjord, the citation of which praised his "skill, courage and devotion to duty of a high order" during the "brilliantly executed operation". See: "No. 37175". The London Gazette (Supplement). 13 July 1945. p. 3619.. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Wow, that's a great find - I've just added it to the article. Thanks a lot. Nick-D (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Very welcome. :) Not sure if there were any other awards for the opperation, though ... Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I've added some minor bibliographic details but other than that I couldn't find anything to fault with the article. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments I was tempted to say something about hyphenation, but this isn't AmEng so I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 01:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• "two 'outriders' ahead": Not taking a position, since single quotes are common in BritEng, but WP:MOSQUOTE prefers double quotes. - Dank (push to talk) 01:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that this is OK so have left it
    • As an update, Christina Goulter (who is a New Zealander who was working in the UK when her book on Coastal Command was published) uses 'outriders'. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Understood that there are good arguments both for and against in BritEng. See WP:MOSQUOTE for some pretty good arguments against. Double quote marks would be needed at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 15:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• "4.25": See WP:MOSTIME. - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed
• German for "squadron" is "Staffel", plural "Staffeln". Probably better just to say "squadrons". - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Changed to just 'Squadrons' as suggested. I read a book last year on the historiography of WWII which complained about English-language writers unnecessarily using German names for German military units and ranks which had clear direct English-language translations. I've left 'Leutnant' though as it appears to translate to 'Second Lieutenant' so something is lost in the translation.
• The first two sentences could probably do a better job of explaining what happened. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I've heavily tweaked the first paragraph - what do you think?
    • That's easier for me to follow. - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Limited Support. "Long-range" would be the right spelling in AmEng, and some of the hyphenation looks wrong, but I'm out of my element in BritEng. But I found very little to complain about, so I can offer some support, for what it's worth. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that's the British English spelling - 'long-range' looks wrong to this Aussie! Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• P.S. Actually I just realized I don't know if this is AusEng or BritEng. Shows what I know. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Speaking as an Aussie, in practice I don't think I've ever noticed much difference. Anyone else...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I think that the differences are pretty marginal, and probably mainly relates to Australian words which would be considered gibberish in the UK... Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's my understanding also. In terms of grammar, spelling, etc. it is essentially the same (at least formally). AustralianRupert (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks, that's helpful, I'll take AusEng as synonymous with BritEng then. - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Support

Thought I'd return the favour, so here are my thoughts on this:

• It seems to me that the term 'Black Friday' should be at the beginning of the lede, as per other articles. At the moment, you have to go down to the bottom of the first paragraph of the lede to find out why it was called that. It's not a major sticking point, but I imagine there's some wretched guideline saying it should be first. I can see why you've done it this way, but it is a tad confusing.
  • Done
• I would wikilink the first use of 'Wing', and possibly add some explanation that the three/four squadrons were grouped together to form a Wing, as it might confuse a reader unfamiliar with military aviation terms.
  • Done
• Do we know why Z33 ran aground, at all?
  • I'm afraid not. It would have been a navigation error of some sort as no source says that she was attacked.
• Are there any details of the flak vessels with Z33? If so, they could be added to the end of the paragraph where Z33 is first introduced.
  • Not really - as explained in note 1, each source gives different figures for the ships accompanying Z33 and it's unclear what they were/
• 'Milson had reservations about making what was likely to be a costly attack, particularly given that the war was clearly coming to an end.' - Did anything come of these reservations? Was he told to be quiet, for example, or reprimanded?
  • The source says that he followed his orders to attack the ship as best as he could despite his concerns - I've tweaked the text to include it

It's a good article, with only a few minor quibbles that I can see, and I'm happy to support. Skinny87 (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 11 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.

---

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

766th Independent Infantry Regiment (North Korea)

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!^(talk) 21:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • no dab links, no issues with ext links, images have alt text (no action required);
  • images appear correctly licenced (no action required);
  • I couldn't see any glaring MOS issues, but I might have missed something;
  • I'm not sure if it is the difference between US English and Australian/British English, but I found that some of the prose was a little abrupt in places or seemed to be missing linking clauses. I didn't attempt to fix in case I changed the variation, however, can I suggest maybe asking someone with a knowledge of US English to copyedit the article?
    • User:Buckshot06 has completed a copy-edit of the article. —Ed!^(talk) 16:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Looks good, thanks Buckshot. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • in the lead, "...pushing them back after several days' fight" (I think "several days' fight" should be "...several days of fighting")
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • in the lead, "...Suffering supply and casualty problems of its own." (the "of its own" implies that some other unit also suffered supply and casualty problems, but you don't seem to mention this. I suggest just removing the "of its own" clause);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • in the lead you use the abbreviation "UN" without formally introducing it. I think you should add "(UN)" beside "United Nations" in the third paragraph;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • other abbreviations need to be formally introduced, e.g. "ROK" etc.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Organization section, "equally distributed in six" ("distributed" and "in" don't seem to agree - perhaps "distributed across six" or "organized in six"?);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Outbreak section, "Around 0400 on June 25, the NK 5th Division began its first attacks on the ROK 10th Regiment in forward positions." (who was in forward positions? Perhaps this might be reworded thusly: "...the NK 5th Division began its first attacks on the ROK 10th Regiment, falling upon their forward positions")
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Advance section, "...NK 5th Division continued south in a slow advance south " (repeated word "south");
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Destruction section, "...replacements and conscripts..." (replacements and conscripts implies a difference, surely conscripts were also replacements);
    • The 2,000 were both regular army recruited from North Korea and civilians forcibly conscripted into the NKPA from South Korean land. I have tried to clarify this. —Ed!^(talk) 16:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "Unit 588" - is this the correct presentation? It seems inconsistent with "766th Unit" due to the lack of ordinal suffix and the word "Unit" appearing first). AustralianRupert (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed. I think that's everything. —Ed!^(talk) 16:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. Well done. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't have much time on wikipedia these days, but absolutely FANTASTIC work Ed! for creating such a good article on an army we don't usually hear about. Congrats; this makes one part of the history of the Korean People's Army clearer. Only thing I would say is that you should tie in the article, mentioning it at 12th Division (North Korea) and Korean People's Army Ground Force articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckshot06 (talk • contribs)
  • Thank you for the copyedit. I have added this unit to both the NKPA and the NK 12th Division pages. —Ed!^(talk) 17:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • I made a few tweaks, please check that you are happy with them;
  • The citation error tool reports that the named ref 'Millett195' is used multiple times (fairly minor issue though);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Some issues with the references I think: specifically do you have the place of publishing for Alexander, Appleman, Millet x 2 and Rottman?
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 04:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This sentence in the lead seems a little awkward to me and I'm not sure of its exact meaning: "Trained extensively in amphibious warfare and unconventional warfare, the 766th Regiment troops were considered special forces commando units." Should it be "the 766th Regiment was considered a special forces commando unit"?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Is the punctuation used in the 2nd para of the 'Origins' section correct - "June, 1950" or should it just be June 1950?
    • According to American English either is acceptable. —Ed!^(talk) 04:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This sentence in the 'Advance' section is a little repetative: "Because of the rugged terrain of the eastern regions of Korea, difficulty with communications and resupply made it difficult for South Korean troops to put up effective resistance." (specifically use of difficulty and difficult in the same sentence).
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The 2nd paragraph in the 'Advance' section is stubby and could probably be linked with the one below it.
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 04:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This sentence seem repeative (in last para of 'Resistance' section): "The 766th Unit specialized in raiding UN supply lines, and effectively mounted small disruptive attacks on UN supplies to equip themselves" (specifically UN supply lines and UN supplies).
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • In 2nd para of the 'Destruction' section you wrote: "The town was strategically important because it was one of the few direct routes through the mountains and into the plain." Maybe you could say which plain this is?
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 04:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This sentence seems problematic: "Upon doing this August 19, the unit ceased to exist." There may be a few missing words here I think.
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 04:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Overall though this is an excellent article and I intend to support once these issues are dealt with. Anotherclown (talk) 09:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Fixed. I think that's everything. —Ed!^(talk) 04:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
        • No worries, happy to support. Anotherclown (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. I'm looking for any input. I don't have as much experience with battlefield articles, so I think I'll start out asking more questions and making fewer edits directly to the article. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
• Is there a better way to say "Suffering ... casualty problems"? This might be a common expression, but feels a little euphemistic to me. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• "disbanded by being absorbed": disbanded and absorbed, maybe. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• "designed to be a scalable unit which would vary in size": designed to vary in size, maybe. If "scalable" is a technical term you want the reader to know, do you have a link for it? - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• "However, the regiment was immediately reduced to 2,500 before the war started when all of its 3rd Battalion was lost as its transport was sunk in Pusan harbor.": In general, it's easier for the reader to digest if you lead with the details and then give any ramifications that the readers can't figure out on their own: "All 500 men of the 3rd Battalion were lost just before the war started when their transport sank was sunk in Pusan harbor." - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC) ...(I mean in any one sentence ... a topic sentence can be useful when the readers won't be able to figure out where the paragraph is going without one.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC) corrected myself: you had it right, "was sunk". 13:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I got this one. - Dank (push to talk) 04:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• "the North Korean leadership began to create large numbers of commando and special forces units to send south. These units would subvert South Korean authority with terror campaigns, sabotage and the inducement of rebellions.": I'm sorry, I haven't studied the Korean War, and I'm lost here. If elements of this regiment were actually sent south before the war began and successfully incited rebellions, that seems to me to need some discussion and citation. If they didn't, then "would" is the wrong word, since many readers will interpret it as the future-in-past tense, that is, they'll deduce that all this actually happened. - Dank (push to talk) 15:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 04:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Still not following. Did they induce rebellions before the war started, or just train for it? After the war started, were they effective at the 3 things you mention? - Dank (push to talk) 05:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay I think I follow, I went with "subverted South Korean authority before and during the war", revert me if that's wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 05:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• "During this time, the unit was expanded in size to 3,000 men in six battalions.": We seem to generally avoid repeating information (except in the lead section, of course), but I don't really have an opinion; anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
• "prepared for the attack ... loaded into ships in preparation for the attack.": maybe delete "in preparation for the attack". - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• More problems with "would". This would (grin) be a good time to cover all the bases, because it seems to come up a lot in MILHIST articles:
• "North Korean forces would number 17,000. This would mean they would outnumber ...": This is the future-in-past tense, and it's the wrong tense here. "The 17,000 North Korean troops outnumbered ..."
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• "The regiment was split into three groups for the attack. Three battalions would act as spearheads for the 5th Division on land while two more battalions would conduct the landings in Imwonjin. This 2,500 man force would then lead the North Korean units south.": Okay, now the future-in-past is technically the right tense, because you've got a narrative going and you're referring to future events before resuming the narrative at the time you left off. But it's always best to rewrite when possible to insert events in the order they actually occurred, and stick with the past tense.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• "... sending strong reconnaissance parties into the mountains to ensure they would not be threatened ...": this would is "conditional", so it's fine; if they didn't do something, something else would happen.
  • My intent was, indeed, for it to be conditional. —Ed!^(talk) 04:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• "... Perimeter. Unbeknownst to the UN forces, the 766th and the 5th Division were to be part of a flanking maneuver that would envelop UN troops and push them back to Pusan.": ... Perimeter, including a flanking maneuver by the 766th and the 5th Division to envelop UN troops and push them back to Pusan. I left off the "part of" because it's best to list all the significant forces. Avoid Unbeknownst in AmEng. - Dank (push to talk) 19:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 04:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• "Because of the rugged terrain of the eastern regions of Korea, poor communication equipment and resupply lines made it difficult for South Korean troops to put up effective resistance.": The rugged terrain of the eastern regions of Korea, poor communication equipment, and unreliable resupply lines thwarted the South Korean resistance. - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 04:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• "caused the division heavy losses to air attacks still": Sorry? - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• "With only the support of one of the 5th Division's regiments": with the support of only one ... - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed. I think that's everything. —Ed!^(talk) 04:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Done for now. It's well written, and I can support after the above issues are addressed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I think I've responded to everything. —Ed!^(talk) 04:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Indeed. Support. Nicely done. - Dank (push to talk) 05:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments This is a very detailed and interesting article, and it's good to see so much work on a relatively obscure North Korean unit. I'm close to supporting, but have the following comments:
  • Given that the regiment was a tactical unit which was fully committed to the war, it's unlikely that its headquarters remained at Hoeryong as the second sentence implies - am I right in thinking that this was its peacetime base?
    • That's correct, though the unit's HQ was at Hoeryong for 14 of its 16 months of existence. Its permanent facilities were at Hoeryong. —Ed!^(talk) 04:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Upon creation, the generically named 766th Unit was designed to be a scalable unit which would vary in size, consisting of a number of smaller units capable of acting alone." is a bit confusing
    • Fixed per above. —Ed!^(talk) 04:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Do we know what the nationality of the 'United Nations ships' which destroyed the 3rd Battalion were? They were almost certainly South Korean or US.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason for the regiment being referred to as the '766th Unit' in the 'Resistance' and 'Destruction' sections? (was it designated after it dropped below regimental strength?) Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    • For consistency's sake, another user requested I refer to it as the "766th Unit" since that was North Korea's official initial name for the unit. However books refer to it as both the 766th Unit and the 766th Regiment, so the terms are interchangeable. —Ed!^(talk) 04:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Using the two different names interchangeably is rather confusing - I'd strongly suggest that you stick with just one name after explaining that this unit had two different designations. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, I did that and someone else suggested I change it to the way it is now. Is there some MOS standard I can consult for this in the future? —Ed!^(talk) 15:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
          • WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME is probably the closest thing. I think that the issue here is consistency though - it's confusing to have the same unit called different things (and switching back to 'unit' after calling this a 'regiment' suggests that it was redesignated during the war, which doesn't seem to have been the case). Nick-D (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
            • OK. I have now standardized all but the first reference to "766th Regiment" —Ed!^(talk) 01:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support My comments are now addressed; great work with this article Ed. Nick-D (talk) 04:27, 15 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.

---

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

List of battlecruisers of Japan

Nominator(s): Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]}

An article concerning the constructed and planned battlecruisers of the Japanese Empire. This is the final article in my work on the Kongo class and Japanese battlecruisers. It's also my first-ever list, so I'm wanting to get a high-calibre review finished before I take it through the FLC process so as to hammer out all the bugs. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 16:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm conomming, but it's my first list too, so any comments related to the FLC criteria would be greatly appreciated. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Couple of quick comments:
  • You've got "armour" in the boxes but "armored cruiser" in the prose - check for uniform spellings.
  • I'd suggest a citation for the one note - it might be common knowledge that Kaga was converted, but better to play it safe.
• That's all for now, I'll give it a closer read tomorrow. Parsecboy (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I can't tell whether eight-eight fleet should be capitalized or not, but if it is, then all three words should be capitalized. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed with Parsecboy about AmEng vs. BritEng ... "modernization", "armour", etc. - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think Cam wrote this in Canadian English, which is sort of a mix of AE and BE. Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Canadian English is fine with me in other articles, but what's the connection between Canada and Japanese battlecruisers? Canada made critically important contributions in WWII of course, but not in that theater (sorry, theatre :). - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I always put a note on my desk to write in AmEng, but I always end up writing mostly in CAnEng. So I'll go through and see what I can fix. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Otherwise, support per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate a quick check of my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 03:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support: Including all the work Dank put into copyediting. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Comments: Largely looks fine to me, as such I focused on minor style issues which might get brought up at FAC:
  • no dab links, no issues with ext links (no action required);
  • images lack alt text, which you might consider adding (suggestion only);
  • I think that per Wikipedia:MOS#Numbers as figures or words "twentieth century" should be "20th century";
    • Oops, you're right. - Dank (push to talk) 05:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I've fixed this. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Hammel is listed in the References, but doesn't seem to be specifically cited;
    • Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Hi, Cam, can you please check this again, as I'm not sure if it has been rectified? From what I can see Hammel is still in the References but is not specifically cited. I think that if you don't cite it specifically, you should put it in a Further reading section;
  • the page ranges in the citations should have endashes per WP:DASH;
    • Fixed several of these. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I found one more, so I fixed it myself as it is only a minor thing. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • for consistency of presentation style, "Garzke and Dulin, p. 84–85" should be "pp. 84–85";
    • Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • the year ranges in the titles in the References section should have endashes (e.g. Schom and Stille works);
    • Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • most of the ISBNs are presented with hyphens, but a couple are not (Gardiner and Lacroix). These should be consistent;
    • Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • do you know the publisher location details for the Jackson and Schom works?
  • in the Design B-65 class section, "...these nighttime strikes" ("nighttime" - is this correct? I'm not sure, sorry, but it just doesn't look right to me);
    • That's what Webster's NWD gives. - Dank (push to talk) 05:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
      • No dramas, that is fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Kongo class section "attack on Pearl Harbour" (I think this should be "Pearl Harbor" - as it is a proper noun, i.e. place name, it would have to be spelt "Harbor" regardless of whether the article is written in British or Canadian English. I might be wrong, though).
    • I can't speak to that really, it's whatever Brits write. Brits write for instance "River Plate" where Americans and Argentines write "Rio de la Plata" (with or without the accent on the i), so we say "River Plate" in BritEng articles. - Dank (push to talk) 05:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Inserted: I was confused by all the "-ours". Cam is shooting for AmEng here. I try not to have an opinion, in general, on British naming conventions; I'm confused enough by Wikipedia's American naming conventions. - Dank (push to talk) 12:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I wasn't sure, so I had a bit of a hunt around the MOS. Wikipedia:MOS#Geographical items states, "[p]laces should generally be referred to consistently using the same name as in the title of their article". Given that the article is spelt Pearl Harbor, I feel that it should be presented as such. Happy to discuss pros and cons of this approach, though, of course. Ultimately, its a minor point and I won't oppose over it. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • could a citation/reference be provided for Footnote 1? AustralianRupert (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
    • All my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comments

• Can you add a citation to "Similar to the German Imperial Navy (Kaiserliche Marine), the Japanese envisioned and designed battlecruisers that could operate alongside battleships in the line of battle to counter numerical superiority." Other than that, I can think of no other citation related issues.

Fixed (I believe). Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Is it possible to add in the launch dates to the list?

I'm not entirely sure. I could, but I think it'll seriously mess up the arrangement of the other columns in terms of how they fit. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 02:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Other than that, there are no other issues that I can see.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 23:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - only a few minor comments: Support
  • The citation error tool reports two errors (Stille, p. 8 - Multiple references contain the same content and stille8 - Multiple references are using the same name);
    • I'm a bit confused by what this means...Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Essentially it means there may be an error with one (or two) of your named refs - ie you may have used the same name twice etc (fairly minor issue its true). The citation error tool can be accessed by clicking 'edit' at the top of the article, then the 'cite' drop down button, click 'Error check', select all three radio buttons and hit 'check', and a citation error report will be generated. I believe this tool may not be available unless you have certain preferences installed so if you don't have it I'll see if I can fix the problem myself. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Fixed it. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • 2nd sentence in lead is a little repetatve: "The battlecruiser was an outgrowth of armored cruiser designs, which had proved highly successful against the Russian Baltic Fleet in the Battle of Tsushima, which ended the Russo-Japanese War." (two 'whichs'); and
    • Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Overall, this is an excellent article and I intend to support once these issues are resolved. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
    • All my points have been resolved so I'm happy to support now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:33, 30 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 07:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Kalavrye

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

This battle, although rather unknown, is one of the few in Byzantine history where we have a thorough description of its course and the tactics used. It is an excellent example of flexibility and resilience on both sides. The article is quite complete, and passed GA without any problems, and I think it meets the A-class criteria. Constantine ✍ 17:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: mainly just nitpicky style/tech comments from me as I don't know enough about the content to comment, sorry:
  • no dab links, no issues with external links (no action required);
  • images appear appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • images lack alt text, you might consider adding it but it is not a requirement (suggestion only);
  • in the Sources section, you have slightly different presentation styles due to the use of different templates: {{cite book}} and {{citation}}. I suggest using the same template for consistency (either would be fine), as using two creates subtle differences (e.g. commas instead of full stops);
  • the hyphenation of the ISBNs are slightly different, these should be consistent (I suggest just removing the hyphens, but so long as you are consistent I don't mind);
  • the Advisor script reports a possible ISBN error for the Treadgold work. Can you please check that it is correct? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Hello! I fixed the isbn and cite template issues. They are not entirely consistent, but that's because I have written them exactly as they appear on the books themselves. For the images' alt text, that will be easy for the portrait of Nikephoros III, but I have really no idea how to make it work for the battle diagrams. Any suggestions or helpful links? Constantine ✍ 09:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
      • My suggestion would be to keep it relatively simple. Perhaps something like: "A graphic illustrating the movement of various military forces around the battlefield." Otherwise I think it would be very difficult to use words to convey what is going on. After all, that is why the images are there in the first place, to make it easier for the reader to understand the complex movements. Not sure if this helps, though. Apologies if it didn't. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • there appears to be a mixture of the English variation with some US and some British English spelling, e.g "realize" (US) and "defenseless" (US), but "honoured" (British). These should be consistent;
  • I think typically use of a heading starting with "The" as in "The battle" is discouraged. Normally I think it would just be "Battle". (I've certainly seen this in other reviews, but now I look I can't find the policy link - so it is just a suggestion.) AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, I fixed the spelling inconsistency (BTW, I think -ize was acceptable in British English too) and added alt text descriptions to images. Constantine ✍ 08:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support: excellent article, in my opinion. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - other than the outstanding issues above I could find little to fault it. Very well done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Well done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:57, 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 02:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Chaplain-Medic massacre

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. I know war crime-related articles are more sensitive than the standard battles, but the discussion on my Hill 303 massacre FAC seems to indicate all but one of the sources I used are good and I have cross-referenced all the information anyway. —Ed!^(talk) 15:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Question: what is the etymology of the article's name? Do the references refer to it as such? If not, I think it may be better to call it Massacre of July 16, 1950. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm not quite sure what to do about that. The only place that has assigned a nomenclature to this event was the McCarthy paper, which called it the "Chaplian-Medic massacre" and is sourced. However at my Hill 303 FAC it was determined last night that McCarthy is a non-HQRS so I had to cross-reference his work with others. A quick search of the internet reveals other mentions of "Chaplain-Medic massacre" derive the name directly from McCarthy. —Ed!^(talk) 16:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I originally reviewed this article against the Good Article criteria (found here). I still think that footnotes are subject to overlinking; the reference should be linked to its respective book in the bibliography only the first time (in my opinion). Also check the disambiguation link (posthumous needs to be disambiguated). JonCatalán^(Talk) 07:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support: McCarthy and others (1954) is used appropriately for events which happened in the commission (the naming) and for the opinion of the US Government. The prose is great. Publications need publisher locations. If you can find sources citing McCarthy for the first use, then substitute those, otherwise, you could double up that citation if the sources directly cite McCarthy on the point (they're allowed to more than we are :). Given that the most popular social name in English will be derived from McCarthy, I don't see a problem with the title. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Good follow-up to the Hill 303 article. Made a few minor tweaks for repetition mainly, but generally prose is excellent and referencing, detail and supporting elelements all seem fine. Well done again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I agree this as a very good article and my only comment is that the lead seems a little repeative. Specifically you mention the "Twenty critically wounded US Army soldiers" in two places. IMO this is probably not required and might be reworded to be a little more succint. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • One other point post script... do you have the location of publishing for the references used? It appears to be missing from most if not all the references used and probably should be added. Anotherclown (talk) 19:50, 26 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 02:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island

Nominator(s): Magic♪piano

This order of battle is the last in a fairly long line of articles I've improved that are part of the New York and New Jersey campaign of the American Revolutionary War. It's the second order of battle I've prepared for eventual feature list consideration; the other was Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton, which passed FLC in July and is the only land-battle order of battle that is currently a featured list. I hope it meets with your approval.

One obvious question reviewers might address is whether a slightly longer battle summary should be provided. Magic♪piano 18:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support: The quote has questionable encyclopedic value (at least, I have heard this reservation before). JonCatalán^(Talk) 03:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • If there are enough objections to it (any Brits with strong feelings on this?), it can obviously be pulled... Thanks for your support. Magic♪piano 14:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't say I feel strongly about it from a nationalistic perspective (!), but an anonymous quote without any context isn't telling me much of value. If the preceding paragraph explained a little about why the quote is historically important, of course, it might be quite interesting. Support, by the way! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, the quote does immediately follow a paragraph describing the wiping out of most of a regiment. I'll see if there are any useful attributions for the quote. Magic♪piano 21:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • My experience, admittedly, is a bit dated. One of my original articles made heavy use of quotes underneath section headers, and these were deemed unencyclopedic. The original T-34 article also made use of quotes, and I believe these have been since removed from the text. JonCatalán^(Talk) 07:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • As best I can tell (still looking for a more reliable source...) the quote is echoing a similar sentiment expressed in text that is on a plaque commemorating the battle, and appears to be first recorded by Gallagher. link for plaque text Magic♪piano 15:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    • In the absence of better sourcing for a better quote, I've pulled the quote. Magic♪piano 13:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments by Dana Boomer

• The lead seems short. Are the requirements for leads in order of battle articles the same as for normal articles/lists?
• Beatson is in notes but not references.
• British and Hessien forces, "The second was new levies". I've only ever heard of levies being used to raise taxes: "a tax was levied". Is there an article/wiktionary link that you could link to about the use of levies meaning "to raise troops"?
• Same section, "The expedition's attempt to occupy..., and was afterward sent north". This may be grammatically correct (I'm not really sure), but it feels very awkward.
• I have no problem with the quote, although it would be nice if it were able to be specifically attributed to someone (especially someone important!).

Other than that, it looks good. Once these are taken care of, I will be happy to support this for A-class. Dana boomer (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your feedback; I've addressed the middle three. I've not seen any specific guidance on the length of the lead for this sort of article, but I can certainly add another paragraph. (I'm still working on a solid source for the plaque text as a replacement for the anonymous quote.) Magic♪piano 13:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• I've extended the lead with a second paragraph. Magic♪piano 15:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good, so I've changed to support. One last thing I saw, in the lead it says "The Americans had set up defenses all along New York's harbor, which were". I realize that the "which" is refering to the defenses, not the harbor, but it could be read either way. Would it be possible to reword this? Dana boomer (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've rephrased this. Magic♪piano 13:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Largely looks fine to me, I only have a few nitpicks:
  • no dab links, ext links work, alt text is present (no action required);
  • image appears correctly licenced (no action required);
  • I think that generally section headings are only fully capitalised if they are proper nouns. As such I'm not certain about the presentation of the heading "American Army". Wasn't the proper name "Continental Army"? If so either the heading should be "American army", or "Continental Army", or you might even consider "American forces" to keep it similar to "British and Hessian forces" above;
  • the third paragraph in the "American Army" section (beginning with "The notes for each unit give some...") appears to be uncited. Can you add a citation to the end of the paragraph please?
  • in the References section the titles should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles, for instance Battles of the American revolution, 1775–1781 should be presented as: Battles of the American Revolution, 1775–1781 (other titles needing attention in this regard include Heitman and Johnston);
  • in the References section, is there a publishing location for the Smith work? Currently it is the only one without it; AustralianRupert (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks for your feedback; I've made changes to address these. I didn't want to use "Continental Army" because not all of the units involved were "on the establishment" of that organization; I've changed it to "American forces". Magic♪piano 13:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:10, 26 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 with a consensus to promote.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Lindsay Hassett

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (new photo poll)

Why is this up here? Well, Warrant Officer Hassett was the captain of the Australian Services cricket team, the Australian military's cricket team, which was officially a military unit. In 1945, they toured England, India and Australia and played in pseudo-international matches against England and India, raising a lot of money for war charities; the government kept extending their service to make more money out of them. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 09:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• No dablinks. The external link checker flags all of the pages from "Cricinfo.com" as having indetermiante status, because of a redirect that "changes sub-domain", but that doesn't seem to be a world-ending problem. Only one image had alternate text. -- saberwyn 00:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The redirect was easily changed with a cut/paste of a pattern prefix :) Alt images done, and some images culled for not being free in the US as well as Australia YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 09:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support This is a very detailed and well-written article. I've focused my suggestions for further improvements on Hassett's military career:
  • ""though he struggled in the Tests, he played a crucial role in Australia's win in the Fourth Test, which sealed the retention of the Ashes with a composed display in the run-chase" is a bit awkward

done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• • File:WO_Hassett_(crop).jpg is unsourced and there's a crisper (and confirmed PD) version of it on the AWM's database here (the AWM has about 10 photos of Hassett during the war so you may wish to add another one to the 'War years and the Services team' section

Sourced, it was a crop of another taken straight from AWM. I am a bit leery of the AWM pics though, as they seem to just say "copyright expired" on photos they also say were taken by a newsagency in the UK, because even if the photographer died the next day, it wouldn't be free until 2015, unless the newsagency donated the rights to the AWM and/or they were then donated.... YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• • It would be helpful if some dates were added to the paras on the Victory Tests and tour of India in the 'War years and the Services team' section (eg, when were the matches played and when did the plot against Hassett take place?)

Done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• • The peformance of the Australian Services cricket team seems to have deteriorated over time - was this due to them becoming upset about not being demobilised? (something which wasn't uncommon with the remaining members of the military)

Made more explicit the fatigue and homsickness YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• • The 'Outside cricket' section is adequate, but seems a bit short - can this be expanded into a few paras? Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Managed to scrape some more out. He was fairly low key, as are most I guess in the old days YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments A1. Excellent citations as always. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Cashman et al., pp. 109–110. ; Name the article and the individual author in the notes section, also the total page range for the article.

Serves me right for using tertiary sources in profile compilations eh?? Done. It was only the original two pages YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• • Robinson, chapter 10. Page Range? Chapter name?

Changed it, it was reporduced in another book in the normal way

• • McHarg, statistical appendix. Page Range for Statistical Appendix?

Don't have the book it was added the previous author; added alternative and commented this one out

• • Extraneous fullstop, "Miller, Keith (1956). Cricket Crossfire. London: Oldbourne Press. pp. 77.."
  • Bibliography, "Haigh, Gideon; Frith, David (2007). Inside story:unlocking Australian" space after colon
  • "Southbank, Victoria: News Custom Publishing." Check if vanity press / self press.

Done the rest, no, NCP is not vanity, Haigh and Frith are world-famous and the book was released amid much fanfare as they were given access to the previously locked archives of Cricket Australia, although apparently Bradman insisted on minimal records when he was in command and they didn't discover any dirt or any info at all on him.. what a cunning politician he was. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You know, I always had a background mistrust of Authority Figures, the Don being part of that. And after reading about his, High Impact Outcomes Focused Management Style and his attitude towards records keeping...; "News Custom" just triggered a warning flag in my mind as far as a publisher name. Glad its good. There's no large problem with using Tertiary sources when and as appropriate. Particularly when they're specialist works on topic done by specialists, etc, etc, etc. But who knows, someone might have drawn an opinion on player quality out of the article for "Stumps" :). Fifelfoo (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Serves me and probably lots of wikipedians for not learning to cite fully to begin with.... YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• SupportComments:
  • in the References section, I think some of the titles are not capitalised correctly as per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles (for instance: Inside story: unlocking Australian cricket's archives should be Inside Story: Unlocking Australian Cricket's Archives);
  • unless I missed it (apologies if I have), you don't seem to specifically mention Hassett's passing away in the prose. I suggest just adding in a sentence or two at the end of the Outside cricket section. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Doing YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support
  • Up to usual standard referencing/detail/illustration-wise. Made a number of prose edits, which I hope have not adversely affected any meaning. Main things (I say this for you to check further as I may have missed some instances) were overuse of the subject's name, and singluar/plural grammar issues (e.g. "Australia" is a singular entity so takes "was', not "were"). None of this was so vital for ACR but might bear on a potential FAC, as do my only outstanding queries/suggestions:
    • You use "establish(ed) himself" is successive sentences -- perhaps "cemented his place in the team" or something similar could be substituted for the second (I thought of "distinguished himself" but you use that soon after as well)...
    • I understand the use of "ton" to avoid repeating "century" but suspect someone will complain of jargon -- maybe a link to century would forestall that...
  • Think that's about it -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:29, 24 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.

---

SMS Kronprinz (1914)

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Yet another German battleship, this one was the fourth and final König class ship. She was undamaged at Jutland and fought the Russian battleship Tsarevitch during Operation Albion. She's also one of the three BBs still on the bottom of Scapa Flow. I wrote this article just the other day, it passed GA this morning, and I feel it's ready for A-class. Thanks to all who take the time to review this article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I reviewed this for GA and I feel that it meets the project's A class criteria. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good, but I am not seeing the name of the commander/captain (names of the officers would be nice, too). I'd also like to see more info in construction section: not technical specs, but why was the ship ordered, was there anything innovative in the construction, and such. Also, I am not familiar with the {{HMS|Cardiff||2}} template; it needs to be disambiguated to HMS Cardiff (D58) somehow. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I haven't seen the name of the ship's captain or any officers anywhere; we generally only know them if they were particularly notable. For instance, SMS Von der Tann's captain at Jutland was Hans Zenker, who went on to serve as the CinC of the Reichsmarine after the war. As for officers, the only time I've ever seen someone other than the captain mentioned was in Richard Stumpf's diary.
  • There wasn't anything specifically innovative about this ship apart from her sisters. I usually keep most of the technical stuff on the class page - the ship articles should just have a short run-down of the technical stuff along with any unique information (see SMS Derfflinger for example). There just doesn't seem to have been anything about this vessel that was different from her sister ships. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment mostly A1, pretty good! Complaint about inflation. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Notes: "Adjusted for inflation, Kronprinz cost $295,395,429 in 2009 dollars." which conversion measure did you use? I hope you used a capital goods measure. Share of GDP won't work here, since it is German GDP in question. I get quite ansty about this because inflation is hard, battleships aren't purchased with the same kind of money-over-time that say, sausages for eating by private individuals are.
    • I just used {{inflation}}. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
      • You'd want to remove that. You're using CPI inflation on US dollars. CPI measures stuff like a bundle of sausages, bread, milk and rent. Battleships aren't bought by people buying sausages, milk, rent. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Removed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Citations look good
  • Bibliography: Subtitles normally take a colon, not a semi-colon, was a semi-colon specifically used on the Title Page of the work? "Preston, Anthony (1972). Battleships of World War I; An Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Battleships of all Nations, 1914–1918."
    • More than likely I forgot to hold shift when I typed it in. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Bibliography: Was the volume number specifically part of the title? The page to check for this is the title page (not the fly page), "Staff, Gary (2010). German Battleships: 1914–1918 (Volume 2)."
    • It's actually German Battleships: 1914-1918 (2), but I got complaints at a FAC about it, and was told I should add the "Volume" to make it clear. But see here for the cover page. It's identical on the two following pages. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Bibliography: ed would normally be Ed. or ed. here, "Sturton, Ian, ed (1987). Conway's All the World's Battleships: 1906 to the Present."
    • I don't know, I'm just using the {{cite book}} template, I'll ask them over there. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Citation: Sturton (1987) in the citations, if citing a named entry written by someone else, should actually be Foo, Bar, "German Battleships of Designation X" in Sturton (1987), pages. ?
    • How does that look now? Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Will get back to you about the rest shortly. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Is good. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments (not urgent)

• Someone recently has been changing "formally commissioned" to "commissioned"; that seems okay to me if it never or rarely happens that people consider the boat commissioned when it hasn't been. Otherwise, "formally commissioned" makes sense to me. - Dank (push to talk) 23:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• I've poked around and can't figure out whether we should write mark, gold mark, Gold Mark or Goldmark. It usually isn't italicized. The name "gold mark" became more common during and after 1914, to distinguish it from the "paper mark", which is right on the edge of the time frame of the relevant paragraph. - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• AP and Chicago (and other guides too, though I don't claim to keep up) are tough on acronyms; AP says "avoid alphabet soup". It's okay to use them when everyone else does or when writing something out over and over would be tiresome. I'm not going to take a position very often on individual words, unless I can find support one way or the other in a style guide; I'm just saying we should abbreviate less often than we do. - Dank (push to talk) 23:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you're referring to AP and semi-AP - I used them because AP is a pretty common abbreviation for armor-piercing in naval literature. I'm fine with not abbreviating it though. Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• I've asked many times (with no answer) where we're going to draw the line on anthropomorphic language. One reviewer laughed at the FAC for HMS Speedy; we're going to get more chuckles if we keep using language for ships that goes way beyond language that you'd use for a car. (I'm talking here about "[The ship] claimed to have made one hit". I'll do my best to defend the line wherever we draw it, but we need a line and some justification from sources for the line.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I rewrote this one and it won't be a problem at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Per WP:LQ, we put the period outside the quote marks if it wasn't in the quoted material. (It wasn't in this case, I've got that book.) If anyone thinks that looks weird, I'll be happy to talk about where that comes from. - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with that. I've always been told by the grammar nazis that punctuation always goes inside the quotation marks, but it always seemed odd to me if the question mark wasn't part of the quote, for instance. Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved questions

• I don't understand this part; when was it that Kronprinz stopped firing? "Between 20:00 and 20:30, Kronprinz and the other III Squadron battleships engaged the British 2nd Light Cruiser Squadron as well as the battleships of the Grand Fleet. Kronprinz attempted to find the range by observing the British muzzle flashes, but the worsening visibility prevented her gunners from acquiring a target. As a result, she held her fire in this period." - Dank (push to talk) 18:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Kronprinz didn't fire. I meant engaged as in she trained her guns on the British ships, not that she opened fire. Is there a way to make that clearer? Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Try something with "trained her guns". - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Support per usual disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I have read through this word for word and struggle to find any issues at all. IMO this is an excellent article, well done. Anotherclown (talk) 21:46, 19 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 07:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Kapyong

Nominator(s): Anotherclown (talk)

I am nominating this article because I believe it meets the A class criteria and is about a fairly important event. I previously started this process in February, but had to withdraw it as the review hadn't been finalised before I deployed overseas. The last review is here. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Do Korean characters exist for the title? The absence compared to the Chinese one caught my attention YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Not sure... maybe another user with more diverse language skills than myself might be able to assist (I barely speak English as it is and have only enough Dari to offend people)? Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: no dabs, ext links work, images all have alt text (no action required). AustralianRupert (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Prelude section, "As part of the preparation, the battle hardened 39th and the 40th Field Army of the 13th Army Group were transferred..." (I think it should be ..."39th and 40th Field Armies...")
    • Fixed. Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Night battle, 23-24 April section, "Platoon Commander" I think should be lower case as per "company commander" used later;
    • Fixed x 2. Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Night battle section, suggest rewording: "This was largely due to the large number of..." (largely and large...);
    • Fixed... that was monsterous! Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • very minor point, but I found a few stylised apostrophes still (I will try to fix where I find them as it is a very minor point);
  • in the Withdrawal of 3RAR section, I think "Second-in-Command" and "Medical Orderly" should be lower case;
    • Yes, fixed now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Withdrawal of 3RAR section, " ...was unable to moved at the scheduled time" (moved is an issue here, might need to be reworded);
    • Fixed. Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Fighting concludes section, "Although the Chinese continued to mount small attacks, the UN forces were now in control of the battle." (I think "now" creates a tense issue);
    • Fixed (I think... I'm no expert on grammar). Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Aftermath section, you use the abbrievation "2nd AIF" without having first introduced it;
    • Fixed. Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Aftermath section, "division including the 25th Canadian, 28th British Commonwealth and 29th British infantry brigades..." (I think "infantry brigades" should be capitalised here as it is part of the proper names of the units);
    • Yes you're right. Fixed now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References section, do you know the location of publication for the Varhola work? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
    • This was difficult to track down (as its actually not in the book itself), but fixed now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the review, I think these are sorted now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support: looks good. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support This is a very comprehensive and high quality article. My suggestions for further improvements are:
  • 'Chinese Spring Offensive' shouldn't be in italics
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You might want to play around with the size of the maps and photos - they're a bit small in the standard thumbnail size, particularly given the length of the article
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • A separate order of battle article would be worthwhile Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks Nick, will see what I can do. Anotherclown (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support with fiddle changes Fifelfoo (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Citations: spacing (O'Neill 1985, pp.125–127); pp. (Varhola 2000, p. 88 and 278. ; Breen 1994, p. 113–114. ; Breen 1994, p. 46–47.); replace ampersand (Chae, Chung & Yang); miscited, treat as partial republication in new format ("The battle of Kapyong, April 1951". The Australian War Memorial. is "Taken from Australia in the Korean war 1950-53, Volume 2: combat operations by Robert O'Neill" and in the section "Encyclopedia") ; miscited, is part of a named exhibition series "Out in the Cold: ..." ("Kapyong 23–24 April 1951". The Australian War Memorial. http://www.awm.gov.au/exhibitions/korea/operations/kapyong/. Retrieved 24 January 2010.);
    • Fixed most of these - will look at the partial republication issue shortly. Anotherclown (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Bibliography:
    • Series come before publication locations (Appleman, Roy (1990).)
      • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Georges Heights: Headquarters Training Command. HQTC of which military?
      • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
    • US State, or Australian State + Australia, or Country: Georges Heights; Loftus; Crows Nest; North Sydney; Cambridge. Vancouver, Manchester and London are probably fine; but you might like to correct for completeness.
      • Done (I think I got them all). Anotherclown (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
    • What makes: Coulthard-Clark, Chris (2001). a reliable tertiary source? Are articles individually authored, if so did you only consult particular articles?
      • Why wouldn't it be? The author is an official historian at the Australian War Memorial and has written dozens of books. Articles in the Encyclopaedia are not individually authored (AFAIK he wrote them all). Anotherclown (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
    • London, England. England, Really?
      • I think that means 'England is so obvious it should be removed'. Done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Help me out with what makes Centre of Military History and Australian Military Historical Publications reliable publishers?
      • Not sure how to respond to this... IMO there is no reason to assume they are not. CMH is a US gov organisation that sponsors academic research on US Army history and has been around for a long time, while AMHP is definately less well known but has published numerous unit histories, biographies and memoires (many in concert with the Army History Unit, such as 'The Fight Leaders'). Anotherclown (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Volume as part of the work title? Double check. O'Neill, Robert (1985). Australia in the Korean War 1950−53. Volume II.
      • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for a very thorough review. Anotherclown (talk) 05:34, 25 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 as Promoted - Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 02:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre

Nominator(s): Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]}

Almirante Latorre was Chile's flagship and the most powerful dreadnought in South America from the 1920s to the 1950s. She served with the UK's Grand Fleet in the First World War as HMS Canada (1913), but was bought back by Chile in 1920. The dreadnought was primarily used as presidential transport during the 1920s, and participated in a major mutiny/rebellion in 1931. Deactivated in the 30s due to the Great Depression, she served through the Second World War – even garnering an purchasing offer from the United States after Pearl Harbor – and was active until 1951. She was scrapped in Japan starting in 1959. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: (apologies for the long list, most are just suggestions)
  • two dab links reported: [4];
  • no ext links, so none to be checked (no action required);
  • are there any images that could be added, even just to the infobox? (not a requirement, just a suggestion);
  • in the lead, "...quickly the instigator of a mutiny which the majority of the Chilean fleet quickly joined..." (needs tweaking due to repeated word "quickly");
  • "...three now-outmoded pre-dreadnoughts" (I think the use of "now" here creates a tense issue, perhaps you could just say "obsolescent"?)
  • "...now acquiring dreadnoughts, Chile responded..." (again the use of "now" I think is a tense issue - I might be wrong, though. I'd suggest just removing "now");
  • mixture of US and British English spelling - for instance "modernization" (US), "traveled" (US), "armour" (British) - please check for others also as I might have missed some;
  • sometimes you say "United Kingdom's Royal Navy" (e.g. in lead) and then "British Royal Navy" (e.g. in Background section) - seems inconsistent, only a minor point, though;
  • in the Construction section, "The ship that would become Almirante Latorre[N 2] was awarded to Armstrong Whitworth on 25 July 1911" - this sentence might confuse lay people, the ship was awarded (i.e. "given") to Armstrong Whitworth? "The contract to build the ship that would become..." might be a clearer way of phrasing;
  • in the Construction section, "...but despite a strong sentiment within Chile to sell the dreadnoughts..." (can you explain this sentiment, at the start of the paragraph it seems like there was concensus, at least in the National Congress to buy the ships, why did this then change?)
  • I think a linking clause is needed before this sentence: "On 9 September 1914, Almirante Latorre was purchased by the United Kingdom for use..." (At the start of the paragraph - i.e the topic sentence - the ship is being christened, but then suddenly it is being purchased by the UK. As such a linking clause such as "However, due to..." or something similar seems necessary here);
  • "...various capacities with the Grand Fleet during the war, including the Battle of Jutland." (I don't think the "various capacities" agrees with "including the Battle of Jutland" - i.e. the Battle of Jutland is not a capacity. Perhaps reword to "served in various capacities with the Grand Fleet during the war, and took part in a number of engagements including the Battle of Jutland";
  • in the Chilean service section, "...speech to senior naval officials to ensure them that his new government..." (I think "ensure" should be "assure");
  • "...After refueling at Port of Spain on the 28th..." (not sure about the use of the ordinal suffix here, per WP:DATESNO);
  • "Two 33-long-ton (34 t) tug boats were carried on the battleship's deck so they could be used in the harbors at Punta Arenas and Valparaíso" - is there any information about why this was necessary?
  • In the Mutiny section, "Just before 0000 on 2 September..." might be best to say "Just before midnight..." here as many readers won't recognise this;
  • In the Mutiny section, "...By the 6th..." (ordinal suffix as per above);
  • in the Later career section, "...and the Vice Admiral heading Chile's naval commission" (I think "Vice Admiral" should be lower case per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms;
  • in the Later career section, "...on the 25th" (ordinal suffix as per above);
  • "...and was taken to Yokohama, arriving there on 30 August 1959" - might need to specify "Japan" here as it makes it clearer (although I would hope most of our readers would know this already, some might not);
  • in the Footnotes, is it possible to add a citation for Footnote # 1 (the cost conversion)?

AustralianRupert (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)>

Thanks AR, I think most of these are fixed, besides the one I don't have information on (the tug boats). I don't want to change 0000 because I'm afraid people will mistake the date – I think some people might think midnight of the day following. I removed the cost conversion per Moreno's FAC. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support: my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comments Yet another great article Ed, but I think a bit more work is needed to get this to A class:
  • If no PD photo of the ship in Chilean service exists, I'd suggest making some use of File:HMS Canada 1914 - 1918.jpg
  • "Almirante Latorre was quickly the instigator of a mutiny" - the ship's crew instigated the mutiny, not the ship itself, and 'quickly' doesn't make much sense in this context
  • It would be helpful to clearly state in the second para of the 'Background' section that Argentina decided to purchase dreadnoughts - this is a bit unclear at present
  • Parliaments don't "give" money to government agencies - it's 'allocated'
  • What's the relevance of the weights of the destroyers and submarines ordered alongside the battleships? This seems to be unnecessary detail.
  • 'The ship' wasn't 'awarded' to the builder - the contract to build her was what was awarded
  • Did Greece want one or both of the battleships? The second last sentence of the 'Construction and purchase' section refers to a 'battleship' being sought and the last sentence refers to 'battleships' being considered for sale.
  • The material on the mutiny seems over-long; I'd suggest editing this so there's a tighter focus on the role played by this ship's crew
  • 'fortify' is an odd word to use in regards to the US Navy seeking to purchase this ship - I'd suggest something like 'reinforce' or 'bolster'
  • Am I right in reading the second para of the 'Later career' section to say that the battleship was reactivated at some stage after the 1930s? This is what's implied by saying that she was the Navy's flagship and 'active'. If so, can you provide the date she was returned to service? Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nick! I think I've addressed all of your concerns barring the mutiny section and the last – I'll try to chop at the mutiny section asap, and details of her later career are ridiculously sketchy. The official history from the Chilean Navy's website doesn't even mention anything between the 1929 refit and her scrapping, while Schenia only mentions the United States purchasing attempt. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments largely addressed, and I'm sure that Ed will chop back the mutiny section as promised above Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Support per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate a quick check of my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • The lead seems a little awkward. Specifically this part: "Construction began soon after the ship was ordered in November 1911, and was approaching completion when she was bought by the United Kingdom's Royal Navy for use in the First World War and renamed HMS Canada. After being commissioned in September 1915, Canada served in the Grand Fleet for the duration of the war and saw action during the Battle of Jutland." Might be reworded thusly: "Construction began soon after the ship was ordered in November 1911, and was approaching completion when she was bought by the United Kingdom's Royal Navy for use in the First World War. Commissioned as HMS Canada in September 1915, she served in the Grand Fleet for the duration of the war and saw action during the Battle of Jutland."
    • Drat, I missed "after being commissioned". Thanks. I tried this, does it work for you? "Commissioned in September 1915, she served in the Grand Fleet as HMS Canada for the duration of the war and saw action during the Battle of Jutland." - Dank (push to talk) 15:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
      • That works for me. Anotherclown (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph in the 'Background' section seems a little abrupt... could more be added to it (or some linking phrases used)?
  • The use of parenthesis in this sentence seems unnecessary to me: "She was officially ordered on 2 November 1911, and was laid down less than a month later (27 November)", might it just be reworded "laid down less than a month later on 27 November?; and
    • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Did Canada see any further service during the First World War after Jutland? I accept the bulk of this can be covered in the HMS Canada article but I believe this section could still summarise this service a little further. Anotherclown (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I didn't see your comments on my watchlist. Thanks for pitching in and helping, Dank. As to your last point, AC, I believe that the Roal Navy was kept on patrol after Jutland. I'll ping Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) just to be sure. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I have little significant detailed info on the activities of the RN dreadnoughts after Jutland. She's not mentioned by name in the official history after the battle so I'd have to presume that she patrolled and trained with the rest of them. I did add some extra info from Burt to the article so see how that reads. But on a more serious note, why hasn't HMS Canada been merged into this article? I see little reason for it to exist as an independent article, especially given the paucity of info available on her wartime experiences.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks Sturm! That's a good question – I found the articles split, so I was going to leave them like that. Would we have enough coverage on the ship's WWI service as it stand right now? Most books I've gone through on Google Books only mention her participation in the battle. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
          • What I've added to this article is the bulk of what is known about her service during the war. Her squadron provided distant cover during 2nd Heligoland, IIRC, but I have no idea if she herself was there or refitting. The same is true for most every British BB during the war. I think that you can profitably merged the Canada article into this one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
            • No worries, if the info doesn't exist thats no drama IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Overall this is an excellent article. I still think the first paragraph in the Background is a bit stubby but that shouldn't hold up the review. Happy to support. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 00:40, 24 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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 07:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Kongō

Nominator(s): Cam ^(Chat)(Prof)

Kongō was the first fully-modern battlecruiser of the Imperial Japanese Navy, and the last capital ship they had constructed outside of Japan (built by Vickers in England). This article has gradually undergone a rewrite over the last few weeks. Passed its GA earlier this week (thanks to Jim Sweeney for reviewing it), and has had some minor copyediting done since. I believe it meets the A-Class Requirements. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, with some commentary below,

• The lead image is the same as the one for the class's article. Perhaps it would be better to interchange it with another image from the article?

Working on that. Cla68 has promised photo uploads. Once they're here, I'll shift the images around significantly. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• On 16 August 1913, Kongō was completed and formally commissioned into the Imperial Japanese Navy. Twelve days later, she departed Portsmouth for Japan. — Not that important, but formerly it's written that the Kongō was laid down at Barrow-in-Furness. Was the ship commissioned in Portsmouth? When did she move from the former to the latter?

We must assume fitting out happened at Porstmouth, though none of my sources say when. I've added a note that she transferred to Portsmouth for fitting out. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• On 3 October 1915,Kongō and Hiei participated in the target-sinking of Imperator Nikolai I, a Russian pre-dreadnought captured in 1905 during the Russo-Japanese War that had subsequently served as a Japanese battleship. — To a non-layman such as myself this sentence actually came off as slightly confusing. I don't know what target-sinking is (well, after looking up the article for Imperator Nikolai I I was able to guess), so while it's clear that the article had been captured by the Japanese in 1905 this is only after you mention target-sinking. So, for someone with no prior knowledge on the topic, it seems as if the Japanese sunk a Russian ship (although, the Japanese and Russians were not at war), and only then does it specify that it had been captured by the Japanese. Like the last comment, this is borderline ridiculous, but I figure any detail is worth mentioning if it's unearthed.

I understand what your issue is, but I have to confess that I'm not entirely sure how to fix it. Prose-wise, I think this is the best we can do without getting into the overly-convoluted minutia of Imperator Nikolai I and the Russo-Japanese War. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• "With the defeat of the German East Asia Squadron by the Royal Navy at the Battle of the Falkland Islands in December 1914, the need for combat operations by the Japanese Navy lessened" — The second part of the sentence doesn't read well to me. Perhaps it should read, "...there was a lesser need for Japanese naval operations in the Pacific." I'm not sure, I've never been good with these type of things.

Changed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Excepting the above pedantry, this reads like a great article and certainly within the guidelines of milhist's a-class.

JonCatalán^(Talk) 01:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support with the caveat that I have had some previous input to the article.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment "Launched on 18 May 1912 before transferring to Portsmouth, Kongō's fitting-out began in the summer of 1912.[6]" I assume that is Portsmouth, England? If so, can we wikilink that? Bonewah (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC) --I went ahead and fixed that as I found a wikilink for Portsmouth later in the article, so I moved it to the first appearance. Bonewah (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"By, Kongō's secondary armament was reconfigured to eight 6-inch (15 cm) guns, eight 5-inch (13 cm) guns, and one hundred and twenty-two Type 96 antiaircraft autocannon.[12]" By what? Some date I would guess. Bonewah (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved Questions

• We usually don't mention Sanskrit word origins ("vajra"), but if the Sanskrit word is particularly relevant to the Japanese word and you want to include it, then it would be best to explain the relevance. Btw, Conway's (p. 234) says that all 4 ships in the class were named after mountains, but it doesn't say which mountains; can anyone confirm or deny, and if true, do we have a link for the namesake? - Dank (push to talk)

I included this particular one here because this one wasn't named for a mountain, though Haruna was (which I mentioned in that article). Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• "they have been called the battlecruiser versions of the British (formerly Turkish) battleship HMS Erin." Conway's says: "The design is usually described as a battlecruiser version of [Erin]." Should we always attribute it when a noted author says some variant of "People say such-and-such"? Anyone? This language was in Japanese battleship Haruna, which passed FA recently. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Quick note, FYI: Chicago (16th edition) is now out, and it's very influential among publishers. They're recommending "US" instead of "U.S." (and UK, and two-letter state abbreviations). Many people follow the 2009 AP though, which recommends "U.S." in text and "US" in headlines. "US" is much more common outside the US. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

updated to 16th ed style. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• When there's this much text repeated from a sister ship's article (Haruna), some will suggest that a hard look is needed to see if we can move the overlapping text to the class article. I don't have a position. - Dank (push to talk)

In the cases where it's repeated, it's because they did the same stuff. I figured it was a waste of time to rewrite entirely when they were involved in the same action. Hiei and Kirishima mostly operated together, while Kongo and Haruna deployed in a pair. I figure keep it in each ship article. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

For stuff that this ship has in common with Haruna but not with the others, I agree, repeat it in the two ship articles. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• IIRC we decided at Haruna's FAC that muzzle flash is not a great link for "flash"; I'm not sure that we know what "flash tightness" is supposed to mean. Let's either find out, or lose it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Right. Forgot about that. I think we've dug this issue endlessly w/o success. I'll lose it. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with "First Reserve"; a quick definition or a link would be nice. Or, "reserve" would work. - Dank (push to talk) 04:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• Your source says "The thickness of KONGO's horizontal armor over her magazines and machinery spaces is increased." That's different from "Kongō's horizontal armor near her ammunition magazines was strengthened, and the machinery spaces within the hull were increased." Is there a different source that supports your statement? - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it's back in Ottawa at the moment. I'll have it by Tuesday. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 17:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

K, source 2 says armour over machinery was increased, not machinery itself. My bad. I'll change it. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 21:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Searching quickly through for "Kongō" gives me a lot of hits ... that sometimes means it would be better to replace some of them with "the ship" or "the battlecruiser" or "she". - Dank (push to talk) 04:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to change. I'll see what I can do. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Kongō bombarded Christmas Island on 7 March 1942, then returned to Staring-baai for 15 days of maintenance and rest.": not clear whether the ship or the crew is resting. The source says "Although on standby alert ..., the crews are allowed some rest and relaxation." "Rest" seems too informal to me ... maybe "15 days leave on standby alert"? - Dank (push to talk) 04:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Changed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• "suffered several near misses but remained undamaged": a ship can "suffer" near misses if it's damaged by shell fragments, but "suffer" is the wrong word if there's no damage. - Dank (push to talk) 05:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• What's "Taffy 3"? - Dank (push to talk) 05:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The Escort-Carrier Group they happened upon. I've reworded it to be more specific. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• I took the quote marks off "numerous hits"; if you add them back, direct quotes require a citation at the end of the sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 05:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright. My bad. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Done with copyediting for now. - Dank (push to talk) 05:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• "... dry-docked for a large reconfiguration of her anti-aircraft suite. Four 6-inch guns and a pair of twin 25-mm mounts were removed ...": Not wrong, but I don't usually hear "large reconfiguration", since "large" could possibly mean anything from replacing 20% to replacing 100%. If "most" (say 50% to 75%) of the anti-aircraft guns were replaced, it would be better to say that. - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

removed "large" from the sentence. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• "separate dyes were introduced for the armor-piercing shells of the four Kongo-class battleships": any idea why? - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of radar fire-control, it made targetting easier, especially in large surface-actions, since you could tell which shells were being fired by your guns. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like everything is done except for finding a source for "the machinery spaces within the hull were increased", or rewording that in line with the ref you've got. - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support per usual disclaimer. Everything's been resolved, nice work. - Dank (push to talk) 21:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments

There's numerous inconsistencies with the armaments and Conway; I would reference Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1922-1946 p. 173 for the WWII stats, and I think you could add another heading for the 1937 refit. The secondary armamaent was originally 16 6" guns (16x1) not (8x2) & it appears most were replaced by 5" DP guns by 1944. Kirk (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've used Stille's accounts of armament changes for the kongos, since those are the ones I have access to on a permanent basis. Fixed the 8x2 mistake. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • in the 1942: Early War Service section, this sentence needs a citation: "On 20 September, the fleet was ordered to return to Truk Naval Base in the Caroline Islands (now Micronesia)."
    • Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that the subsection headings are not correctly capitalised in the Service section. For instance I think "1942: Early War Service" should be "1942: Early war service";
    • They seem to have all been fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • sometimes you use spaced endashes (e.g in the 1942: Early War Service section) and then unspaced emdashes (e.g. 1929–1935: Reconstruction section). These should be consistent;
    • Done as best as I can. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I've fixed the only one I could find. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Boyle appears in the Citations but not in the References;
    • Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • some of the citations have years but some don't - is there a reason for this?
    • The ones by multiple authors usually
      • Okay, I'd suggest making it all uniform, but it is not really a major drama. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • in Citation # 4 you have "Parshall, Jon; Bob Hacket..." in italics but in Citation # 5 and 8 you don't;
    • Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 01:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • are Parshall, Hacket etc the authors of the website? If they are they shouldn't be presented as they are which currently makes it look like they are the publishers (or in one instance that they are the Work that the page is a part of);
    • Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 01:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Morison appears in the References but you don't appear to specifically cite the work;
  • same as above for the work by Frank;
  • same as above for Moore;
    • Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • the Advisor script reports a possible error with the ISBNs for the Schom and Wilmot works;
    • Both fixed
  • here is an inconsistent representation of accessdates (i.e "Retrieved 2010-09-10" and "Retrieved 26 February 2009"AustralianRupert (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I believe fixed
• Can you please check my last couple of unstruck comments above? Otherwise looks fine and I'd be happy to support. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:35, 15 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 03:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hadong Ambush

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!^(talk) 03:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• It would be good for the group refs to be in numerical order, ie not [15][1] etc YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 00:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments This article is in good shape, but I think it needs a little more work to reach A class:
  • Did the US commander really order that the retreat be "disorganized" as the current wording of the introduction states?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems inaccurate to say that the 24th "division was consequently alone" given that it had air support and was (I think) fighting alongside South Korean units at times.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • More generally, the 'background' section doesn't mention the South Korean military at all - what condition was it in at the time?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "The battalions, now consisting mostly of recruits who had no combat experience and grouped into two battalions" is confusing
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The article is written almost entirely from the US perspective - is it possible to say anything about the North Korean experience of the battle?
    • Added some info about their background moves. —Ed!^(talk) 01:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Maps would be helpful Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Map added. I think I've responded to everything. —Ed!^(talk) 01:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Is the statement in the lead about "untrained" troops accurate? Inexperienced might be a better word choice, as the soldiers would have gone through basic training. Bit of a nitpick, I know, but there is a difference between untrained and inexperienced.
  • Agreed. I have fixed this. —Ed!^(talk) 01:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • In the "ambush" section, "Machine gun" should be all lower case - "machine gun".
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • When you jump from unit to unit, especially in the last couple of sections, it can be difficult to tell if you're talking about a US or NKPA unit. You might clear that up by changing the "Withdrawal" section title to "American Withdrawal."
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 01:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Concur with the previous comment that maps would be helpful, even if it's just a general map of South Korea with the location of the ambush marked.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Done. I think I have responded to everything. —Ed!^(talk) 01:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Looks ok now.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments A1. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Publisher locations.
    • Added the ones I can find. —Ed!^(talk) 02:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Notes are in style
  • Original publication date in Square Brackets for Fehrenbach, T.R. (2001), ?
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 02:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • A2: Was there nothing in Chae, Han Kook; Chung, Suk Kyun; Yang, Yong Cho (2001), Yang, Hee Wan; Lim, Won Hyok; Sims, Thomas Lee et al., eds., The Korean War, Volume I, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, ISBN 0803277946?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Writing: "preregistered" is a term of art for military science relating to artillery bombardments, explain what walking into a preregistered ambush means suffering a horrible artillery bombardment, and wiki link the technical term
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
      • preregistered isn't linked or explained. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - From the top, as usual,
  • Infobox and Lead
    • Casualty figure in infobox needs a citation, or a note explaining that it's fleshed out in detail later in the article.
      • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 00:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The beligerants section mentions South Korea, but I see no mention of South Korean forces directly involved in the action anywhere else in the article
      • Well, the police force which was fighting in the town was what I was referring to there but they weren't directly related to the ambush. I can always take it out. —Ed!^(talk) 00:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • North Korean forces were able to separate the American unit's elements from one another and kill most of its leadership, further disorganizing them. - the wording of this sentence is somewhat awkward. Can it be fixed in any way?
      • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • When you mention "3rd Battalion, 29th Infantry", I immediately assume we're talking divisions here. Are 29th Division and 29th Regiment different? If so you should probably specify Regiment in the worded link itself
      • Traditionally, "29th Infantry" refers just to the regiment. If it was any other unit it would be referred to as such. I've clarified this though. —Ed!^(talk) 01:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Ok. That's my confusion. North of the 49th we only use numerical designations for units with multiple battalions (3rd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment) or brigade/division forces. Our regiments use names rather than numerical deisgnations, so that's where my confusion comes from... Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Outbreak of War
    • However, US forces in the Far East had been steadily decreasing since the end of World War II, five years earlier, and at the time..., could the middle bit maybe be reworded to "steadily decreasing since the end of World War II in 1945, and at the time..." just to make it less choppy?
      • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    • By that time, the Eighth Army's force of combat troops were roughly equal to North Korean forces attacking the region, with new UN units arriving every day.[8] - do we know what the rough strength of these units was at the time? It would help for comparison's sake so the reader can appreciate how fast the buildup happened.
      • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Replacements Arrive
    • By July 22 the units were on the front lines with new equipment that was not prepared for combat, despite promises from several commanders that they would be given time to do so.[11][14][15] - which wasn't ready for combat, the troops or the equipment? I'm guessing troops, but the wording makes it a bit unclear.
      • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Arrival
    • Are the village of Hadong and the junction of Hadong the same place? If so, then you don't need to explain the location twice.
      • Clarified. They were seizing Hadong pass, which is a mile from Hadong village.
    • You use about five different words to describe Hadong (town, city, village, etc). Pick one size designation and stick w/ it.
      • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • NK 6th Division commander General Pang Ho San ordered his forces to aggressively scout to Chinju as quickly as possible.[19] - I'm thinking "scout to Chinju" is probably using the wrong verb. Maybe "scout Chinju" or "advance to Chinju"?
      • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • During this trip, shortly before dawn, the troops encountered a truck of 15 South Korean militia who claimed they were the remains of a 400-man unit that had been wiped out by North Korean forces in the area.[21] - the "during this trip" is unecessary
      • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Ambush
    • The North Koreans immediately ducked for cover in the ditches on the side of the road, and L Company opened up on them.[20][23] - "opened up on them" sounds a bit too informal for my tastes.
      • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The 3rd Battalion had walked into a preregistered North Korean ambush, and almost its entire command ground was eliminated within a minute of the first shot being fired. - what exactly is "command ground"?
      • Typo. I meant "Command group." Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • American Withdrawal
    • They also had to cross a 20 feet (6.1 m)-wide stream in the retreat, and some drowned in the process. - "20 feet-wide stream" just doesn't sound right. Try some of the other conversion template options. It may just be an adj=on issue.
      • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Aftermath
    • Over 30 vehicles and practically all of the crew-served and individual weapons used by 3rd Battalion were lost.[31] - the "crew-served and individual weapons" part is a bit convoluted and confusing.
      • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Fix these issues and I'll be happy to support. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 00:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think I have corrected all of these issues. —Ed!^(talk) 01:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - all my concerns have been addressed. Excellent work on this article! Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 21:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • I have made a few changes, please confirm you are happy with them and revert if required;
    • They look good to me. Thanks. —Ed!^(talk) 14:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The first sentence of the lead is a little problematic IMO. Perhaps it could be reworded to: "The Hadong Ambush was an engagement between United States and North Korean forces that occurred on July 27, 1950 in the village of Hadong in southern South Korea, early in the Korean War."?
    • Agreed. Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Were the soldiers of 3rd Battalion, 29th Infantry Regiment really 'raw recruits'? Surely they were just inexperienced soldiers.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Grammar seems problematic here: "leaving lower-ranking soldiers mounting a disorganized struggle against North Korean troops on higher ground and in prepared positions." Could it be reworded: "leaving lower-ranking soldiers to mount a disorganized struggle against North Korean troops occupying the high ground in prepared positions."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Terms like 'enemy' need to be removed to maintain a neutral POV (you use it in the 'Arrival' section); and
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 14:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This sentence is a little repetative: "He had few soldiers of his own, and accompanied the battalion with only a few of his aides", maybe reword one of the instances of the word 'few'? Anotherclown (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
    • • Done. I think that's everything. —Ed!^(talk) 14:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I have made a couple more minor changes so please check them out Ed. Overall though this is another fine article and I happy to support. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 20:45, 19 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 05:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

One of the most important and interesting conflicts of the 10th century, involving three of eastern Europe's greatest powers. The article passed GAN some time ago, and after various tweaks and copyedits after suggestions the GA review, I feel that it is ready for A-class... Any suggestions for improvement are welcome. Constantine ✍ 11:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• Why not use one of the images from the body for the lead? The best choice would probably the very last, since it's most related to the general topic and a bit more interesting than the one from the Manasses Chronicle.
• You have two wikilinks that lead to disambiguation pages. See them here.
• The prose is somewhat rough. I would suggest a copyedit. I went through the lead and made very minor adjustments, but I think it could use some re-writes in specific instances. To clarify, the prose is not bad, but neither is FA-quality. Not nearly enough to oppose, but I rather wait until someone gives a second opinion. Done I have done a top-to-bottom copy edit and made some improvements. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• A big thanks to Diannaa for an excellent copyedit! Constantine ✍ 08:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to review this. I added a new image in the infobox, as for the disambiguation pages, they both refer to Rus'–Byzantine War, which is topic page for the series of wars. It can;t be helped. I'll ask for a copyedit, but in the meantime, if you could suggest anything that might be improved/corrected, please do so. What do you think of it content-wise and in terms of accessibility? Constantine ✍ 16:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, for the purpose of archiving this review, my comment was never an oppose (specifically, because I didn't mean to hold up the process; I was making a passing comment). However, with the copyedit, I am happy to support. JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I liked the narration, and I generally felt that the article is comprehensive. Of course, I also believe that a copy-editing by a native speaker would further upgrade the quality of the prose. A remark concerning a picture: File:Lebedev Svyatoslavs meeting with Emperor John.jpg. No copyright problem, because it is an old painting, but I see no source. I would also prefer a more modern map than the one of 1903. Besides that, I did not manage to find any problem.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to reply, but I was rather busy in RL... On the 1903 map, it is IMO quite good in presenting the overall situation in the wider region, as well as the major sites mentioned in the text. Given that it was a work supervised by the great J.B. Bury, it's also quite accurate. I'll try to make a more up-to-date map on the Balkan situation ca. 960, however. On Lebedev's image, I have asked the original uploader (User:Ghirlandajo) to provide the source. Constantine ✍ 15:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Image source for Lebedev found. Constantine ✍ 09:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• SupportComments:

• Some ISBNs have hyphens and others don't (they should be consistent - either all with or all without)
• The first paragraph of the lead should be expanded (it is to small compared with other two, maybe to include more information from the Background section)
• There is no mention of Kingdom of Croatia in fairly long Background section (Croatian-Byzantine pact, Battle of the Bosnian Highlands, even the alt text of the map of southeastern Europe mention all countries except of Croatia).
• Consecutive to a remark above, your first sentence of the Background section "By the beginning of the 10th century, two powers had come to share the Balkans:" - does this mean that Croatia was not a part of the Balkan, or...
• Check for a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement (...a payment of 1,500 pounds of gold...)

Kebeta (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the isbn issue, I'll also check the spaces and re-check the lede. On Croatia and the Balkans, the wording initially was "dominated", as Bulgaria and Byzantium were indisputably the two hegemonic powers in the region. I'll change it back. As for mentioning Croatia, the sources I relied upon do not actually mention it, since its role was pretty much peripheral to non-existent in the events described in the article. The background section is already too large, if I added Croatia too it would be too much. The breaking away of Serbia, mentioned in the article, is important because it marked the first significant loss of territory to Bulgaria and facilitated Byzantine penetration of the region, while Croatia had never been in the Bulgarian orbit and was to all intents and purposes an independent power. Constantine ✍ 20:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, I expanded the first sentence to summarize the article as a whole, and fixed the other points. Constantine ✍ 08:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• SupportComments:
  • ext links work, alt text is present (no action required);
  • the Dimitri Obolensky work is missing an ISBN, I think you can find it here: [5]; Done -Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • if you have them to hand, the References should have location details added to them (some of them have them currently, but others don't). The worldcat.org link can sometimes help you find them, however, if you can't find them that is okay and it is not a big deal. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Done --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Since a number of issues mentioned above have been solved Support.Alexikoua (talk) 17:08, 9 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 07:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thomas C. Kinkaid

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... Still adding to the articles on the South West Pacific Area. Kinkaid was MacArthur's naval commander. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • Page ranges in citations require endashes.
    •  Done
  • Cite #77 requires a publisher.
    •  Done
  • I am a little concerned about the significant use of Wheeler 1995. Are there any other sources that could be used to break up the dominance of this source?
    • Wheeler is the only source for early biographical information. I have tried to suplement it where possible. Once we get to World War II, Wheeler ceases to be the major source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Added a couple of extra references. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The toolbox reports three disambig links: Battle of Santa Cruz, Georgetown and Third Fleet.
    •  Done
  • File:Daniel E. Barbey.jpg requires alt text.
    •  Done

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- passed this at GA some time ago and, having re-read and checked recent mods, I think it deserves to progress to A-Class -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • no dab links, ext links work, images have alt text (no action required);
  • images appear to be correctly licenced (no action required);
  • the image "File:Daniel E. Barbey.jpg" should probably be edited to add categories, description, etc. - but this doesn't really affect this review;
    • I think this is because the image was originally uploaded to Commons. I've added categories.
  • watch out for overlink, for example in the Solomon Islands section "South Dakota (BB-57)" is linked three times (similar issue with Hornet, Enterprise, Harder [submarine]);
    • This is an artefact of the ships template.
      • I'd suggest not using the template on subsequent mentions (only on the first), but its not a warstoper for me. It might get raised at FAC, though, but its your call. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Early career section, "promoted to Lieutenant in..." (rank should be lower case here per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms;
    •  Done
  • in the Early career section, "...now a Vice Admiral, who then ordered ..." (Vice Admiral should be lower case as per above);
    •  Done
  • in the Southwest Pacific section, "promoted to Admiral on 3 April 1945" (same as above);
    •  Done
  • there is some mixture of British and US English, for example "defences" (British), "honor" (US).
    •  Done The article is supposed to be in American English, but the spell checker does not pick up these things.

AustralianRupert (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support: my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments
  • Images look good
  • Barbey is in the Bibliography but not the References. Same for Hoyt and Lundstrom 1984.
    •  Done They are now.
  • The Morison books look a little odd because they're arranged by time frame rather than publishing date like the rest of the authors of multiple works. Can we standardize this?
    •  Done
  • Lead, "an admiral of the United States Navy". Is "of the" common Navy terminology? From my lay(wo)man's perspective, "in the" would make more sense.
    •  Done. Yes, but changed anyway.
  • Early life, "moved to Philadelphia, Norfolk, Virginia, Annapolis and Georgetown, Washington, D.C.. " Why states for some and not others?
    •  Done. Some places are better known than others. Made consistent.
  • Early career, "20-foot (6.1 m) Rangefinder" Why is Rangefinder capitalized? Later in the paragraph it is "range finder", note the capitalization and spacing.
    •  Done. The former was caused by the article link; de-capitalized. The latter is actually quite correct, as it reflects a US/British spelling difference; but changed to be consistent.
  • Between the wars, "a narrowly technical article". What is "narrowly technical"?
    •  Done. Deleted "narrowly". The intent was to compare and contrast Kinkaid's two articles. The debate over the 6-inch vs 8-inch gun involved a lot more than Kinkaid's article implied. In the end, the whole issue was largely moot because during World War II torpedoes and aircraft dominated surface warfare.
  • Coral Sea and Midway, "destroyers of both carriers.[20] Carrier warfare was in its infancy, and the American carriers neither carried adequate". Carriers, carrier, carriers, carried. Repetition.
    •  Done.
  • Later life, "The Australian government chose to honor Kinkaid with an honorary Companion of the Order of the Bath, which was presented by the Australian Ambassador in Washington at a ceremony at the Australian embassy there on Australia Day, 26 January 1948". Australian, Australian, Australian, Australia. Repetition.
    •  Done. Re-worded to remove repetition.
• I've read up through the Early career section, and it looks fairly good so far, with just minor comments/issues. More later. Dana boomer (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Addendum: I have finished reading through the article and added the rest of my comments above. Overall a nice article, although a little jargon heavy in a few areas. Once the above are taken care of, I will be happy to support. Dana boomer (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I've made a series of corrections. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the slow response. Everything looks good, so I've changed my vote to support. Dana boomer (talk) 16:53, 15 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 06:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Lam Van Phat

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (new photo poll)

South Vietnamese General involved in a lot of coup attempts. Unfortunatly there is no info of what happened to him after he retired/was kicked out of the army YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 09:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This is a really great article, but is it possible to find a source which says that nothing is known about Phat's life after 1965? Nick-D (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't know of scholarly work where the writer commented that they tried looking and found nothing, so probably, nobody cared once he was out of the picture as far as coups were concerned YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, fair enough and given your record of in-depth research I'm sure that you looked everywhere for sources. As such, I'm happy to support this article's promotion. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Concur that this is a good article. I did notice one or two small things (the Vietnam in South Vietnam isn't capitalized in at least one instance), but that was about it. You might wish to make it clear in the end section that no further sources on Phat's life after 1968 are available. But on the whole I can say support.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the caps YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment A1 is good except...
  • Tucker, Spencer C. (2000). when cited in notes should indicate the article referred to, if the article was individually authored, the individual author, and the page range of the article separate to the page referred to specifically. Surely Tucker is an (Ed.) no? Other editors? Your page ranges (298–291; 526–533.) indicate strongly you're referring to two different specific articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Considered going for multiple columns for your notes? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, should have tagged cashman and tucker as Eds all these years. Serves me right for using the odd tertiary source here and there eh? Replaced most of the Tucker with secondary alts. The only one remaining is a stats/records entry by Tucker himself; I made a copy of that page as it was highly useful...columned YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the lead has too many paragraphs. Currently it is five, but the maximum should only be four I believe per WP:LEAD. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support:
  • no dabs, ext links work, images all have alt text (no action required);
  • images appear correctly licenced;
  • before sending to FAC please check for US and British variations: I found "armored" (US) and "realized" (US), but you have some British spellings (e.g. "organised", "behaviour", etc.) – there might be more (this is only very minor, so I'm happy to support, but please take a look at this before taking the article further). Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Attending YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:19, 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.

---

• Promoted: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire

Nominator(s): White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine}

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because after spending several weeks working on it in my sandbox. I recently moved it it the main space. Having asked for an assessment, the list was initially given start-class designation as I needed more citations in the lead. I've corrected that and cited the whole list and User:Woody (The one who reviewed the list for the B-class criteria) now says that he sees no outstanding issues with the list and encouraged me to send it to ACR. So here I am again! I've done this before with the List of battleships of Austria-Hungary and have modeled this list off of that of the Austro-Hungarian and German ones. Any comments wold be appreciated! Thanks :)White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment
  • Unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe hazegray.org meets the requirements to be a reliable source, so all of the citations to this will have to be replaced.
    • Removed.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 21:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The Brandenburg class section has too much information on the ships' German service and should be cut down.
    • Buggie has cut down on the section a but. If there needs to be more trimming, feel free to let me know.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 21:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
      • What's the purpose of noting that the ships served in China and 1901? It sort of comes out of nowhere, and isn't directly connected with the sale of the ships in 1910. Also, I suspect that OSN isn't the source for that information. Parsecboy (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Removed.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 02:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • There needs to be more information on Yavuz after the end of the war - it essentially goes from 1918 to being scrapped in '73.
    • I'll try and get to that. Buggie111 (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Added.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 23:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Better now. Parsecboy (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Why are the photos being forced to 200px?
    • IDK, but what is wrong with doing so. Buggie111 (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
      • As far as I know, the general standard is to leave them as thumbs, which allows editors to view them as they have set their preferences (I have mine set at the maximum of 300px). You should really only force them to be larger if it's a small image (like a map or something) that would be hard to see at a smaller size. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Fixed.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 01:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The lead image has to go - no proof that the author died more than 70 years ago (or its status as PD can be verified in some other way, such as the date of publication in Germany).
  • The article needs to be read through - you've got a number of typos I noticed on just a quick glance ("BRazilian", "Reshas-I-Hammiss" instead of "Reshad-I-Hammiss", etc.)
    • User:Diannaa from the GOCE has done a good job at copy-editing it :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 21:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• That's all for now. Parsecboy (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • A couple more little things: the citations to Conway's 1860 should mention all three editors, not just Gardiner (or otherwise remove the other two from the full citation). It's a little confusing to have Fatih's displacement in the box, along with the note saying her exact displacement is unknown - it might be better to leave the box empty with just the note. The closing coord can count me in support once these two minor issues are addressed. Parsecboy (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the issue with Fatih. As for Conway's, look at the citations! There is one set that mentions all three, (1860) another set that mentions two authors (another Conway book) and there is one Conway book that only has Gardiner.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 03:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment
  • It needs some copyediting, and some additional info on Yavuz would also be welcome, as Parsecboy noted.
    • I've requested one. The list will likely be edited in a day or two.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The original lead image was certainly published in late 1914 or early 1915 at the latest, because it directly refers to the Ottoman Empire's entry into the war ("Die Türkei schlägt los" means "Turkey hits out"), so it should be PD (at the very least, PD-US-1923-abroad).
  • I am surprised that the chief source on the contemporary Ottoman navy, the Ottoman Steam Navy has not been used at all. This led to at least one notable mistake in the article, for the Ottomans were certainly not engaged in any naval antagonism with Italy or Austria-Hungary in 1913-14. I would feel much more confident in supporting promotion if such a specialized source were used. Constantine ✍ 14:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Sure. I'l try and find it. Buggie111 (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I've added in several citations from the book :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 01:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Indeed. I can see no outstanding problems, so I support the nomination. Constantine ✍ 10:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Hazegray is definitely not reliable
    • I'll remove it, but is it reliable for GA-class? Buggie111 (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I doubt it.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 23:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Needs a copyedit for things like "The Sultan Osman I when through three separate names and legally belonged to three different navies in her career."
    • Was a copyedit done?
      • Yes, User:Diannaa did one a few days ago.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 21:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I went through it as well shortly after that, picking up a few other things, so the prose has had a few eyes on it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Captions need work. "A picture of the Erin with a kite balloon." -- why "a picture"? No note of the time the photo was taken? "The Agincourt following the Erin, also a seized Ottoman battleship." -- we just found out the second part in the section above.
    • Fixed captions.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 23:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "Ship class" has no hyphen; "Ship-class battleship" does.
    • Fixed.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 23:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Your use of "The" before ship names is inconsistent. I'd recommend getting rid of them.
    • All removed.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 00:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • {{Convert}} outputs need to be looked at, ie "The Abdul Kadir was planed to be armed with four 8 inches (20 cm) guns, ten 5.9 inches (150 mm) guns, and four above-water torpedo tubes.[1]" Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Removed.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 23:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I've removed the info on the basis as my last FL on the Austro-Hungarian battleships. It is mentioned in the table.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 23:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Ed wasn't telling you to remove them, just that you need to fix the template coding so it doesn't say "8 inches guns." Parsecboy (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I know but the sentence had the same info as the table. It was not needed.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 22:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Further comment - is it just me, or is the lead image rather obviously photoshopped (or whatever they called it in those days)? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Technical stuff
  • No dab links or broken external links.
  • All but one image are missing alt text. Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Comment
  • This is a very worthwhile article and looks pretty good IMO, with a decent lead, consistent detail for each class of ship, and thorough sourcing; however I'd like to see all outstanding comments above acknowledged/actioned before supporting.
    • Everything is fixed in the above comments other than the addition of that book. I'm currently working on a solution to that as well.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 01:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
      • What of Parsec's question re. the lead image? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Replaced with a photo of the Goeben.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 13:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Okay, that should satisfy things, though I wonder if it might be better swapping that with the one of Goeben arriving in the Bosporus as the latter is 'busier' and therefore looks better as a big leading image, while the shot of Goeben on its own is okay as a thumb in the body of the article. Just a thought, doesn't affect my support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I took the liberty of copyediting for prose/grammar, let me know if I've inadvertently altered the meaning of anything.
    • Everything checks out fine IMHO.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 01:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I assume the citation "Gardiner and Gray" refers to Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1860—1905 but the Bibliography section only mentions Gardiner as editor -- should be consistent.
    • There is a citation with only Gardiner. I've added the other book as well though.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 01:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Also for consistency, Johnston should appear in the Bibliography section and be cited in short form. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 01:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay, all my concerns have been addressed -- well done guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

• Cite 12 is incorrect. Page 16 of Ottoman Steam Navy does not reference the ex-German battleships in any way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at page 16...the whole page. I'll go back and take another look though :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 01:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Until I am able to get a copy of the book again, I have removed the citations Strum.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 21:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. So now what's the supporting cite for their service in China, etc? You'll need to remove all that unless you can support that statement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Added page 66 from Hore. Hope this is good. Is there anything else that you need addressed?--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 00:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Support on prose only per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 19:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Your copyedits look fine to me thanks :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 21:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Support w/ comments:

• "...so the Ottoman Navy Foundation was established with the aim of purchasing new ships through public donations rather than having them built locally." → What does "public donation" have to do with where they were built? Do you mean constructed by foreigners, or you mean that the ships were financed through donations? Later, you elucidate that it means the latter, but that still leaves the issue that the two parts of the sentence are unrelated to each other. So, instead of "rather" it might be better to use something like "while". JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

They were financed through public donations ;)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 00:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment Is this ACR winding down?--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 00:33, 8 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 as Promoted - Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 22:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hill 303 massacre

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!^(talk) 00:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This is a rather skillful piece of writing, given that mistreatment of US POW is a hot button issue that is seldom understood by the public. Just one comment, I quote Mahoney, Kevin (2001), Formidable Enemies: the North Korean and Chinese Soldier in the Korean War, Novato, CA: Presidio Press, ISBN 9780891417385, page 106: "Some North Koreans, no doubt, resented the presences of foreign troops in a conflict that they viewed as a strictly Korean affair, and their feelings could have found an outlet in executions of American prisoners." Given that Mahoney's comment is more of a general overview of all the POW executions carried out during the war, do you think his comment is relevant in this case? Jim101 (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I mean, I tend to look at that as more of an "educated opinion." It's difficult to confirm that sentiment existed, and I was trying to be neutral and avoid such explanations, which I fear would come off as fringe theories. —Ed!^(talk) 06:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Just checking...for the record the idea of "America supports Japan to re-dominate Asia" are extremely powerful and popular within NK and Chinese society at that time. Anyway, it's just something you may want to take a look if you have the time. I support this article. Jim101 (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Some minor comments / recommendations:
  • Leade: There is reference to a "Pair of memorials" - this is explained in the last section of the article. But one continually wonders why there was a "pair" - perhaps its better to simply refer to "memorials" rather than a "pair of memorials" in the leade.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Section titled "North Korean Advance." Reference is made to a "platoon of tanks" - is this correct?
    • Yes. A platoon of tanks is a column of 4-6 tanks. —Ed!^(talk) 16:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Troop for armour, platoon for infantry? Farawayman (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Section "Imprisonment:" "....pounded.... the positions heavily" I think "pounded" implies heavy bombardment.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Section "Massacre:" The first three sentences of this section are effectively the crux of the article. I would think that they require specific citations.
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 16:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Section "American Response" - suggest that the quotation be done in italics or using quotation marks.
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 16:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Ed, I think you forgot to save this edit, but its not a major issue! Farawayman (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Support subject to above. Farawayman (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I have corrected everything you suggested. —Ed!^(talk) 16:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

Good show! Unqualified Support Farawayman (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Some minor comments:

• • In summary, I thought it was an admirable attempt to neutrally cover a difficult military episode. A few detailed points...
  • "Five North Korean divisions amassed to oppose the UN at Taegu, from south to north, the 10th,[11] 3rd, 15th, 13th,[12] 1st Divisions occupied a line from Tuksong-dong and around Waegwan to Kunwi." - I thought the comma after Taegu might usefully be a semi-colon (but my grammar's not great!).
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "Hill 303 is an elongated oval 2 miles (3.2 km) long on a northeast-southwest axis..." How about "Hill 303 forms an elongated oval..."?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "At this point, the force on the hill was cut off from the rest of the American force." - pedantic, but wasn't it cut off as of 08:30 in the previous sentence but one?
    • Reordered sentences. —Ed!^(talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "Later in the morning the platoon heard tank motors and saw two North Korean T-34s followed by 200 or more enemy soldiers on the road below them." Does this imply that there were potentially more than two T-34s? Also, the word "motors" might be redundant. (e.g. could this say "Later in the morning the platoon saw two North Korean T-34s followed by 200 or more enemy soldiers on the road below them."?)
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "The 4th Company, 2nd Battalion, 206th Mechanized Infantry Regiment of the NK 105th Armored Division were the captors." - could this read "They were captured by the 4th company, 2nd battalion..."?
    • Reworded. —Ed!^(talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "The original captors did not retain possession of the prisoners throughout the next two days." This read slightly oddly to me. Do you mean "continuous possession"? (i.e. they continued to guard the prisoners, but not continuously?")
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "One of the mortarmen, Cpl. Roy L. Day, Jr., spoke Japanese and spoke..." Suggest that the first "spoke" becomes "could speak".
    • I altered to "spoke Japanese and was able to converse..." as part of my copyedit, which might achieve the same aim. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "At 14:00 on August 17, an air strike came in..." Was this a UN airstrike?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • " group of 14 North Korean guards signaled by superiors fired" - I wasn't sure what "signalled" meant in this context? (e.g. just "ordered", or "directed"...?)
    • I used "directed" in my ce FWIW. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "The strike and artillery preparation, were..." not sure the comma is necessary.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "...torture and execution of prisoners thanks to decades..." Suggest "thanks to" > "due to the"
    • I used "due to" in my ce. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hchc2009 (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"Signaled by superiors" may mean designated by superiors to execute the orders, but this needs to be clarified.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think everything you mentioned has been addressed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• The quote in the section "American response" needs some kind of introduction.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 18:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• "American" may be replaced by "United States" or "U.S.".  Cs32en Talk to me  00:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 18:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• The infobox says "Attack type: Massacre." However, it was not an attack, it was an execution (neutral language) or a massacre (the common term).  Cs32en Talk to me  00:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed. I think I have responded to everything you addressed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• This looks quite well put together. I feel the prose could use some copyediting, however, which I'm happy to supply -- probably quicker than noting things down here. Naturally if I accidentally alter any meaning, feel free to revert... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Completed my copyedit and pretty close to supporting, but like to see comments by other editors above acknowledged first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I have responded to all of the above concerns you didn't address. Thank you for your help! —Ed!^(talk) 18:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Tks, looks good to me -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I made a couple of minor tweaks, but it looks okay to me. Well done. A few tech comments for the sake of the review:
  • no dabs;
  • ext links all work;
  • images all have alt text. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:16, 7 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 06:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it's bound for FLC. As usual I'm concerned about the amount of information provided, whether too much or not enough. I'm not sure if HMVS Cerberus should included because I'm not sure of the exact legal relations ships between the Colony of Victoria's navy and the Royal Navy. Thoughts on this issue from Australian editors are welcome. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Heritage Division (2010). p21 can be individually linked to in the reference section using ...: p. 21. This cleans up the "Individual page can be found here..." issue? All cites and refs look good. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Indeed it can.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Can see nothing that concerns me --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: (technical)
  • two dab links reported: [6];
    • Fixed
  • ext links work (no action required);
  • images lack alt text, you might consider adding it (suggestion only);
  • I think File:Cyclops class monitor diagrams Brasseys 1888.jpg needs the PD-1923 tag rather than the life of author + 70 years (the author's name isn't stated, so there is nothing to support this claim);
    • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • other images seem correctly licenced to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support: my concerns have been addressed and the article has been thoroughly copyedited. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:58, 2 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 06:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

HMS Liverpool (C11)

Nominator(s): SoLando (Talk)

I believe the article satisfies the requsiite criteia to be considered for A-class; however, I', likely oblivious too any prose issues the might have (or might be identified ;-). Outstanding concern that I have is source-related: note 42 and note 59; although there is explicit attribution, I'm skeptical that their inclusion would be accepted at an FAC. I have replaced naval-history.net with alternative sources due to enduring doubts at MILHIST about its reliability (pretty onerous task!) SoLando (Talk) 22:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry, but I don't think that this article is at A class standard yet.
  • No problem. I hope the issues raised can be addressed sufficiently to persuade you to support the article ;-).
  • The prose needs some work and much of the lead is confusing. Some examples are:
    • "she served in the Second World War, with the Mediterranean Fleet from 1945 until her decommission" - this needs to be be re-worded as something like "she served in the Second World War in the Pacific, Atlantic and Mediterranean. Following the war she was a unit of the Mediterranean Fleet from 1945 until she was decommissioned"
      • EnigmaMcmxc has since edited the lede.
    • "the first warship to do so at the shipyards for a year" - "the first warship to be launched at that shipyard for a year" perhaps?
      • How does "Liverpool became the first cruiser launched at the Fairfield shipyard since Norfolk and the first warship to be launched there for a year" sound?
        • That's a bit wordy, and does it need to be in the article? One major warship a year per shipyard doesn't seem an unusual rate of production for the era. I'd suggest cutting this outright unless it has particular significance. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
          • The distinction of being the first cruiser to be launched at Fairfield in nearly a decade does probably merit inclusion...I've deleted the other. SoLando (Talk) 14:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The article contains unnecessary detail. For instance, the themes of the speeches given at her launching ceremony and an incorrect story about her commissioning date in the Times don't add much value.
    • The ceremonial details are probably expendable - removed. I would prefer to at least retain the Emerald element as it does have some validity - no less legitimate than noting X battalion relieved Y battalion. That said, it would probably benefit from the context provided by the (apparently) planned original date of commission as Emerald left the station in '38. What do you think?
      • It seems to have been removed now. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The article contains seemingly unnecessary provisos - for instance, why does it need to be said that a shot was "reportedly" fired over Asama Maru's bow, that the official history of Australian in WW2 "claimed" something and that "The Admiralty announced" the number of casualties when she was attacked? Surely these facts can now be said to be true or false?
    • The first passage is extracted from a contemporary report...while it is apparent that Liverpool did indeed fire a warning shot, there appears to be no "recent" source that confirms that, for whatever reason. I've dropped the "claimed", replaced it with "said"...that was me being overly cautious. Is that ok? Again, there is no recent source that provides casualty figures for the attack, hence this passage. I've reworded.
      • That seems better Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What makes the journal of a midshipman a reliable source? His claim that the petrol explosion on 14 October 1940 was equivalent to "ten torpedoes" is plainly wrong - there wouldn't have been much left of the ship if she'd suffered such an explosion.
    • I do admit to being apprehensive about the use of a primary source, but the contemporary journal is mostly used for non-controversial detail: Carley floats being prepared, the arrival of certain ships, the burial of the dead. In my personal opinion, it's an insightful contemporary account that has been accurately represented in the text, without any interpretation or synth'. In regards to the intensity of the explosion, it's not a claim per se, but a subjective observation as to how the explosion felt to him at the time. I agree that it might be interpreted differently by some readers. What would you recommend? Omit?
      • Yes. Midshipmen are, by definition, among the least experienced (and often among the youngest) sailors on their ship, so their experiences shouldn't be treated as reliable sources in isolation. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I've excised the apparently ambiguous material, but the remainder is arguably legitimate. He would clearly have been aware of the preparation of the floats and arrival of Gloucester, would have observed or been told of the burial of the dead (and their number), while the RDF claim is explicitly attributed to him. SoLando (Talk) 14:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The statement that Liverpool began "two-year period of refitting and maintenance at Rosyth that did not end until after the war" in August 1942 is contradicted by the later statement that the refit was completed in July 1943. It would seem that the ship was then placed in reserve as she couldn't be manned rather than that work continued on her. Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Damage repairs were completed in 1943. Rearranged order of sentences for greater clarity. I'll reread the article later tonight, however, if there are still prose issues it will need a copyeditor with a fresh perspective. Thanks! SoLando (Talk) 18:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Now fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support My above concerns are now addressed; great work. It's also great to see so much effort being put into an article on a cruiser - these were important ships for their day. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • Citation # 45 (The Shipbuilder and Marine Engine-Builder, 1946, p. 500) is completely in italics - should this be so? It doesn't look right to me;

Grah. Formatted. Very sharp eyes! SoLando (Talk) 18:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• • the titles in the Reference list should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles. For instance Roskill "The war at sea, 1939-1945" should be "The War at Sea, 1939-1945" (there are other examples that also need tweaking e.g. Connell, Edwards, Geoge, Haggie, Hague, Leggett, Smith 1981);

Grah. Formatted. Overlooked due to C & P conveniance ;-)

• • I think it is usually common when using the short citation style just to use surnames, rather than using surnames and initials/first names. E.g. see Wikipedia:CITESHORT#Shortened footnotes. I'd suggest removing them as the first names/initials clutter up the short citations and IMO defeat the purpose which is to enable the reader to quickly determine the source;

That is true. It's a discretionary style I became quite accustomed to over the years on here and it has, I guess, become ingrained. I'll reformat to conform to the currently prevailing style...it will probably take much longer to adjust, though ;-). SoLando (Talk) 18:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Citation # 40 (Read, A.D. (1949), Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, London: Royal Institution of Naval Architects, p. 100) does not appear to conform with the citation style of the rest of the article. It also does not appear to be included in the References section. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit of a quandry when it comes to this journal's style, in that it's from a limited preview GB search. Will move. Thanks! SoLando (Talk) 18:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: before taking to FAC (if that is where you are thinking of heading), you might consider adding OCLC numbers to the works in the References section that are too old for ISBNs. These can be found by searching here: [7]. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Now Supporting, good job. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Questions Opposing until the concerns are dealt with ... just a little bit more needed. - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• My British English isn't great, but shouldn't that be "north-west England" instead of "north west England"? - Dank (push to talk)
• "The cruiser instigated a diplomatic incident with Japan in January 1940 when she intercepted and boarded the liner": A cruiser boarded a liner? My preference is that we draw a line somewhere on anthropomorphism and stick to it, otherwise things get weird. Any thoughts guys? What do we say ships can and can't "do"? - Dank (push to talk)
• Is "subclass" better with or without a hyphen in BritEng? There's no hyphen in AmEng. - Dank (push to talk)
• We seem to be pretty consistently going with the hyphen when "X-class" precedes a noun. I made the change ... does anyone want to argue against the hyphen? - Dank (push to talk)
• "Ordered under the 1935 estimates": I'd explain "estimates", but a link would work. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Before her departure, Liverpool visited her namesake port in January 1939.": the first phrase needs rewording. - Dank (push to talk)
• "... Liverpool worked up in the Mediterranean for two months ...":I don't know what "worked up" means. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Liverpool reportedly discharged a warning shot ...": The article in Time magazine says it happened; does "reportedly" mean there's reason to doubt them? - Dank (push to talk)
• "The Government of Japan condemned the operation as an abuse of belligerent rights and formally protested the action, which further escalated tensions between the two countries. Yet despite increased public hostility towards Britain, the Japanese and British governments sought to defuse the dispute through negotiation.": You probably don't need to mention the hostility after tensions ... depends on whether you're saying something new. - Dank (push to talk)
• More in the morning. - Dank (push to talk) 03:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Will respond once you've completed your review. Don't want to disrupt any editing! ;-) SoLando (Talk) 17:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• "transporting 1,200 reinforcements, airmen, and RAF provisions": Are the airmen included in the total of 1200? If not, do you have an estimate for the number of airmen? - Dank (push to talk)

The estimate in Titterton seems...ambiugous and could easily be exclusive to non-RAF reinforcements. If so, then then number of RAF personnel isn't specified. SoLando (Talk) 18:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, removed the number; if someone really needs the number, then we'll try to find a better source. - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• "protected from the 29th" is perfectly good BritEng for "protected starting on the 29th", but in AmEng that means you're being protected from some unit called the 29th. I changed to "starting on". - Dank (push to talk)
• "Liverpool's losses in the attack had amounted to three officers and 27 ratings killed and 35 wounded.": "killing ratings" means something completely different over here. Can we use a term everyone will understand? - Dank (push to talk)

The alternative would be be "sailors" or "seamen", but that might in itself be deemed confusing when following "officers". Would you agree? SoLando (Talk) 18:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

How about "3 officers and 27 crewmen killed and 35 crewmen wounded"? - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Made the edit but you can change it if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• I see you've got 5 citations to "The Journal of Midshipman W. P. Hayes, RCN". You'll have trouble with the FAC requirement (which we're still working out and getting tripped up over) of a "highly reliable" source. My personal position is that we should be more lenient with certain kinds of unpublished material, and if it's true as it says that all the midshipman kept diaries which were often checked and compared against each other, that's a good argument for plausibility, but you're going to need more than plausibility for FAC. Have there been any discussions about this source? - Dank (push to talk) Striking this and the previous mentions of FAC because I might have misread your introductory comments ... FAC's a headache, and I'm more than happy to focus on just doing what's needed for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 15:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• "The group that included Liverpool positioned itself west of Bear Island, in the Barents Sea, as cover and to rendezvous with the cruiser.": "Cover" means to me that there was artillery on the island that could engage the enemy if the group was attacked, is that right? - Dank (push to talk)

In this instance, the term is synonymous with "screen" and "escort". The latter is used throughout the article, so cover was chosen for variation and to reflect the source used. SoLando (Talk) 18:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but the previous sentence says "joined a group of warships that was to have escorted Trinidad". Removed "as cover"; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 19:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• "... and was used by the Senior Officer, Reserve Fleet, and his staff.": If this is the same thing as "the Senior Officer of the Reserve Fleet and his staff", that would be better. - Dank (push to talk)

This would have been an official title. The alternative might convey the suggestion that he was the commander-in-chief of the fleet. SoLando (Talk) 18:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Added quote marks: "Senior Officer, Reserve Fleet" and his staff. We need either that or a link to avoid the ambiguity. - Dank (push to talk) 19:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• What's an "accommodation ship"? If that's not something official or customary, could we just say that the ship served as accommodations? - Dank (push to talk)
• Okay done with the copyediting, your turn. In many cases I was probably changing perfectly good British English into something that I think, I hope, everyone understands, but correct me if I'm wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - some minor comments, mainly concerning grammar:
  • The lead is a little choppy in places and a number of short sentences could probably be joined. Specifically I would suggested rewording "An aerial attack on 14 June 1942 during Operation Harpoon proved to be the ship's final combat of the war. For the duration of the conflict, Liverpool underwent repairs and refitting at Rosyth, Scotland." to "An aerial attack on 14 June 1942 during Operation Harpoon proved to be the ship's final combat of the war and for the remainder of the conflict, she underwent repairs and refitting at Rosyth, Scotland."
  • Some minor grammatical issues IMO. For instance: "Her captain transferred in late October to the battleship Ramillies; command of Liverpool was assumed by Captain A.L. Poland on the 27th." This could be reworded easily to something like: "Her captain transferred in late October to the battleship Ramillies and command of Liverpool was assumed by Captain A.L. Poland on the 27th."
  • Use of the phrase 'would not be' in "The ship's presence would not be disclosed until September when the US Navy Department released a list identifying 12 ships situated in various ports" seems incorrect (in terms of tense), and could be changed to "was not disclosed".
    • I disagree, although "was not disclosed" is also fine. This tense is used by many good writers, I see it all the time, but only in the middle of a narrative series where you want to jump ahead briefly and then return to the previous point in time. I agree that it's a good idea to take a hard look when this tense is used because it's often misused, but Solando used it correctly both times here. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
      • No worries mate, I'm no expert anyway. It just sounded wrong to me . Anotherclown (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Again the phrase 'would not be' in "Although repairs at Rosyth were completed by July 1943, sufficient personnel would not be assigned to Liverpool until late 1945" could be changed to "were not".
    • Same here. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The sentence "Liverpool returned to service in October 1945 to join the 15th Cruiser Squadron of the Mediterranean Fleet, serving mostly as a flagship." could be reworded as "Liverpool returned to service in October 1945, joining the 15th Cruiser Squadron of the Mediterranean Fleet, in which it served mostly as a flagship." (or something similar).
  • "more than 12 months elapsed before the vessel had been completely dismantled." could be reworded as "more than 12 months elapsed before the vessel was completely dismantled"
  • Overall the article is a little repetative, as you use 'Liverpool' in too many places. You can vary this by using terms such as 'the ship' or 'she' etc. Anotherclown (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Support - looks like all of my concerns have been taken care of. An excellent article in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 12:07, 4 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 04:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Taegu

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!^(talk) 19:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I find the narrative somewhat confusing, and I believe some restructuring may be needed.

• "From south to north, the city was defended by the US 1st Cavalry Division, and the ROK 1st Division and ROK 6th Division of ROK II Corps.": Unit placement needs to be a bit more detailed. Taegu perimeter is a big place, so the the sector of responsibility for each UN division needs to be clearly defined. And please indicate which division is facing north and which division is facing west, and locate any significant battle locations that the readers needs to know before the action starts.
  • I think I have clarified this. The divisions were positioned pretty much according to the map at the side which I used as a reference. —Ed!^(talk) 02:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• "from south to north, the 10th,[17] 3rd, 15th, 13th,[18] 1st Divisions occupied a line from Tuksong-dong and around Waegwan to Kunwi.": Same problem, which NK division was ordered to attack which UN division at where? Are those divisions intended to launch a frontal attack along the entire line or chose specific points for penetration?
  • I tried to clarify this too but it is very difficult. The divisions were spread out, their positions before the battle weren't well recorded and they apparently funneled into the same general area for the attack, anyway. —Ed!^(talk) 02:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Opening moves section: the movement between NK and SK units are extremely confusing due to the lack of details on initial unit placements and the intentions of NK and SK commands. I believe fixing the two points above can go a long way in reducing confusion.Jim101 (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Let me know if my clarifications fixed the problem. —Ed!^(talk) 02:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It did help, and after reading the article few more time, I finally have a good idea of unit movement, so I won't hold my above comment against this article. But for the article to be read more than few times to understand is still far from ideal. I would suggest this article to incorporate contents from The Korean War: Volume 1 before taking it to FAC. Anyway, striking all comments. Jim101 (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment A1 concerned about source diversity. Seek Korean Institute of Military History The Korean War: Volume 1, University of Nebraska, 2000. Editions prior to the University of Nebraska edition (in Korean) should not be considered reliable as it was state history. With the easing of tensions within the ROK regime the quality has improved. Also concerned about the lack of DPRK accounts, but unable to suggest monographs / scholarly works in English. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As for DPRK sources, I believe the relevant work would be The Joseon People's History of the Justice War for Fatherland Liberation published by DPRK Foreign Language Publishing House, but there isn't any English version of the book. However, the book The Korean War: Volume 1 did referenced extensively to DPRK sources. Jim101 (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to keep the sources more or less independent, with 2 US Government and 8 independent, but the problem is there aren't any North Korean accounts I can find (they did not record things well during the war) though I will try to add a little from the book Jim suggested. —Ed!^(talk) 02:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Coments:
  • no dab links, no issues with ext links, alt text is present (no action required);
  • images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • in the infobox "3,700 +" (could you specify if this is killed, or killed and wounded)?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • there is some inconsistency in your date format, for example in the infobox you have "August 5-20, 1950", but the in the Background section "25 June 1950" (there may be other examples, for instance "16 August" in the Carpet bombing section);
    • I think I have fixed all of these. —Ed!^(talk) 18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • there is some inconsistency in how you present the abbreviation for the United States. E.g. in the North Korean advance you have "U.S. 19th Infantry Regiment", but in the Taegu section you have "US 1st Cavalry Division". These should be consistent;
    • I think I have made all this consistent, too. —Ed!^(talk) 18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Opening moves section, "Within a week, the NK 1st and 13th divisions were converging" (divisions should be capitalised here as it is a proper noun);
    • Not when it is plural; the 1st Division and the 13th Division individually are capitalized, because those names are proper nouns. In this case, "division" only modifies 1st and 13th. —Ed!^(talk) 18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I disagree with this, but it is your call. I've never heard of plurals altering whether something is a proper noun (e.g the 1st and 2nd Battalions, Royal Australian Regiment would not be shown as 1st and 2nd battalions, Royal Australian Regiment). By using lower case it indicates to the reader that they are improper nouns (i.e. quantitites rather than numerical designations). They are still the official names of those units, just that you've chosen to discuss the two in the same clause rather than two separate clauses. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Opening moves section, "From August 12-16 the three..." (there should be an endash between 12 and 16 per WP:DASH);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Second Yongp'o attack section, "In its first combat mission, the crossing of the Naktong the 10th Division suffered 2,500 casualties." (there should be a comma after "Naktong");
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Hill 303 section, "However the North Korean command was also apparently concerned with the conduct of its troops and issues orders to limit killing of Prisoners of War." (the word "issues" should be "issued", I think, in order to maintain past tense);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References section the Leckie and Stewart sources should have endashes for the year ranges;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • where possible, location details should be added to the References (currently only the Paik work has location details), but if they aren't available, that is okay and I won't hold it against the article. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I think I have fixed everything I could. —Ed!^(talk) 18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support: most of my concerns have been addressed and the remaining one is only minor and is subjective so I won't hold it against the review. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments
  • Gugeler in references, not in notes. Same for Stewart. Otherwise, sources look good.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Lead, "attacks in the South Korean troops were more successful". Should this be "...Korean sector..."?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • North Korean advance, "the KPA force". Who? This acronym is not explained.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Taegu, "crossing the Naktong at different areas along the low area." Repetition of "area".
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Battle, "North Korean soldiers waded across the river carrying weapons and equipment over their heads. The division's three regiments crossed on foot and by raft" The first sentence and the beginning of the second seem redundant. Also, was it unusual or unique that they were carrying their weapons/equipment over their heads? If not, it seems rather like irrelevant minutia.
    • Fixed the first part. For the second, it was notable in that they carried everything they had to fight with over their heads as they waded. —Ed!^(talk) 18:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Opening moves, "constructing underwater bridges". Could "underwater bridges" be linked? Also, why was the decision made to build the bridges underwater, and was the Korean War the first real application of these bridges? I'm mainly wondering because I've never heard of these, despite fairly extensive military reading (granted, most of that is WWII and before).
    • There isn't an article about them on Wikipedia. North Koreans used this tacitc often during the Pusan Perimeter campaign, it is one they learned from the Soviets. Basically underwater bridges are more difficult to bomb out of commission. —Ed!^(talk) 19:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Opening moves, "These tanks evidently succeeded in crossing". Was this ever in doubt?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Opening moves, "The experienced NK 3rd Division, concentrated in the vicinity of Songju, and the untested NK 10th Division, concentrated in the Koryong area." Sentence fragment - what about these two?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Opening moves, "These two divisions crossed in the US 1st Cavalry Division's line." What do you mean by "in"?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Hill 303. In the Hill 303 Massacre article, it says that 41 men were killed. In this article it says "about" 45 men were shot, with 5 surviving, which equals "about" 40, but then say the number is unclear. Which is it?
    • 45 were shot but only 40-41 died. As you can see on that article sources conflict on whether four or five of the captured people survived the massacre. —Ed!^(talk) 19:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Hill 303, "North Korean command was also apparently concerned". What was the evidence that they were concerned - or why is it "apparently"?
    • Intercepted documents allude to this. Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 19:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Images look good.
• I've read through the background section and everything looks good so far, with only minor comments/changes. Please check my copyediting to make sure I haven't inadvertently changed the meaning of anything. I'll read through the rest and leave comments later today. Dana boomer (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've read through the rest of the article and added a few more comments here. Once these are taken care of, I look forward to supporting. Dana boomer (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think all the issues you brought up have been addressed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Everything looks good, changing to support. Dana boomer (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Support - Though it might be nice to seperate the Allied casualty figures into South Korean and American casualties if the data is available.XavierGreen (talk) 23:23, 30 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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 07:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I'm still not real comfortable with lists and would like opinions regarding the amount of detail in the lede and in the class paragraphs. Are they appropriate; if not what needs to be added or deleted? Does the lede cover everything that it needs to? Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Support I think the lede is ok apart from the definition of battlecruiser could be added into the text instead of as a note which at the beginning of the article does not look right. The sections I understand are just supposed to be summary's but the length depends on what they did during their service. To keep them all more or less the same size perhaps a bit more for the Queen Mary class. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Technical stuff
  • Fixed one dab link so all good there, and no external link issues.
  • No images have alt text, but all appear appropriately licenced. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - I'll mostly address prose and refs, since lists aren't my thing either.
  • In the section on Invincibles, The two surviving ships had an uneventful time for the rest of the war conducting patrols of the North Sea.... "had an uneventful time" sounds a wee bit on the informal side to me.
  • In the Indefatigable section, it says that the former "blew up". I think we can be a bit more specific than that. It's not like the ship just spontaneously exploded. The German battlecruisers hit her quite a few times. I'd add something mentioning which ships sank her (since we know for sure. I'd check w/ parsec about that one)
• Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 22:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Done and done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Looks pretty good to me, but I think the lead is too long. It looks like six paragraphs, but per WP:MOSLEAD, it can only be a maximum of four. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, four paragraphs it is.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support: my concern has been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - looks good, I like the length and coverage of the lead. Some food for thought:
  • That is one ugly template at the lead, and I think a picture would do better. Is there any way to convert that into a 'normal' template that goes at the bottom?
    • Maybe, lemme look into it.
  • Links for Tiger and Hood in the lead?
    • Added.
  • Do we need the bolded names in every section?
    • Removed, thanks to Dank.
  • Should it be renamed to "List of battlecruisers of the United Kingdom" to be consistent with "List of battlecruisers of Germany", etc.?
    • I don't think so since the navy and government names remain the same. Germany and Russia both had different names and lists could be legitimately made for x of the Soviet Navy vs. x of the Imperial Russian Navy while leaving the more comprehensive x of Russia
  • Anything on Hoods inter-war activities? The 1929 refit would probably be worth mentioning, at least. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, sure, I've got a daily record of her activities. Not really sure the refit is the most significant thing though. Let me think on it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Added some other stuff.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • "they were least successful against enemy battleships" - all three British BCs were destroyed by their German counterparts, not BBs.
    • Quite right; I've rewritten that bit
  • The following sentence about cordite handling/etc. seems to come out of nowhere and doesn't flow logically from the previous sentence.
    • I'm not sure that I follow, but see how it flows now that I've clarified things a little bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "rated as battlecruisers only in reference to the more" - maybe "comparison" instead of "reference"
    • Already done by one of my many helpful copyeditors.
  • "The three Courageous-class ships were converted to aircraft carriers during the 1920s and only Repulse, Renown and Hood served in the Second World War" - this makes it sound as though the Courageouses were withdrawn from service before WWII.
    • Fixed.
  • Link "war in the Pacific" to Pacific War
    • Already done for me.
  • Any way to beef up the Invincible class and Queen Mary sections? They look rather short and sad compared to the other sections. One suggestion for QM is to spell out some of the differences between her and her half-sisters of the Lion class. All that's apparent right now is the slightly greater displacement.
    • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know if it's just me, but the bottom line of the box for the Indefatigables isn't showing up.
    • I know, I can't figure out how to fix it.
  • You have a mix of the ship name by itself and "the" ship name (the one I noticed was "the Princess Royal) - this should be consistent.
    • I caught a couple more.
  • There are a couple of very long paras that could be split, the second paras in the Lion and Renown class sections are the worst.
    • Done.
• The article is in pretty good shape all-around, I'm just nitpicking to help ensure the article is up to snuff for FLC. Parsecboy (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Much appreciated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Support per usual disclaimer. I'm almost finished copyediting. Other than the things that Sturm mentions he's thinking about, it appears to me he's fielded the comments from Parsecboy and Ed, except that I agree with Parsecboy about the "cordite" sentence. But I'm not experienced with WP:FLC, we'll see how it goes. Per this screenshot (courtesy of User:John), AWB automatically checks for duplicate links ... that would be a lot easier than checking them by hand as I've been doing, so I'm not checking duplicate links any more. If someone could get these before these articles get to FAC, the noms would probably shower you with barnstars. - Dank (push to talk) 13:37, 27 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 07:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Marengo

Nominator(s): Andynomite (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I have worked substantially on improving it in the last few days and feel that it meets the required criteria. Andynomite (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Technical stuff
  • No dab links or broken external links.
  • Last 7 images missing alt text. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was working on it. Now it's fixed. Andynomite (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments It's great to see the article on this important and famous battle here at an A class review. However, I think that the article needs a bit more work before it meets the A class criteria:
  • It doesn't seem accurate to say that the French won the battle "in the last minute"
    • Why? This is a perfect example of a last minute victory. Andynomite (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
      • It's not precise and will confuse readers - the battle didn't come down to a single minute's fighting. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Would "in the last moment" be ok? Or have you got any other suggestions? Andynomite (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
          • 'near the end of the day' perhaps. The battle wasn't won in a 'moment' or 'minute'. Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
            • Done. Andynomite (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The one paragraph sections should be combined
    • Done. Andynomite (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The 'Forces' section seems too short - you could expand this into a paragraph on each side describing the units involved in the battle and cover topics such as their prior training and experience and combat readiness on the day of the battle
    • Done. Andynomite (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The 'consequences' section seems too short given the important results of the battle
    • Expanded. Andynomite (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Miscellany and similar sections are discouraged under WP:TRIVIA. There seems to be a very interesting few paragraphs/section on how the battle was commemorated in here, but it should be more formally written and supported by citations. It would be interesting if this section discussed why the battle achieved such lasting fame.
    • Done. Andynomite (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Please provide the full publishing details (especially ISBNs) for the books you've used as references
    • Done. Andynomite (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Do all the external links meet the requirements of WP:EL? Nick-D (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Could you be more specific please? Which links seem problematic? Andynomite (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
      • http://www.napoleonguide.com/battle_marengo.htm seems to be self-published and has no content that's not already in the article Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Replaced with a link to a site detailing the defeat of the Consular Guard. Andynomite (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Comments now addressed Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment A1: Hollins, David in The Encyclopedia of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars by Gregory Fremont-Barnes (main editor). Article name? Editors don't get a by, they're not authorially responsible. Doubts about Greenhill, Pen & Sword presses; especially as there's negative reviews of the facticity of Smith, Digby (1998) in the Amazon sales page. Got reviews in academic journals indicating they're worthwhile? Fifelfoo (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Hollins solved. I've removed Smith because he was a left-over from when I started editing the article and had no in-text reference. Regarding Arnold, a quick search on Amazon([8]) reveals that, together with Hollins, they are the only English authors who have stand-alone books published on the subject. And Arnold's rating isn't bad at all. Andynomite (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
    • My impression is that Pen & Sword are the type of publisher who publish whatever books authors bring to them which the firm thinks will prove profitable, and don't either commission books or apply a lot of quality control. As a result, they're hit and miss - some books published by the company are great while others are awful. I've seen books published by Pen & Sword in major university libraries, so they should be judged on a book by book basis. Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
      • An overview of James Arnold plus reviews on Amazon US and UK. Andynomite (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comments:
  • I think the lead is too long. It looks like five paragraphs, but the maximum is four per WP:LEAD;
  • In the Austrian plans and the preliminary French moves section, the emdashes should be unspaced per WP:DASH;
  • some of the ISBNs have hyphens but others don't, I think they should be consistent;
  • the page ranges in the Footnotes should have endashes;
  • I think that the timings are not presented per WP:MOSTIME#Time of day, which seems to indicate that it should either be "a.m." or "am" rather than "A.M.";
  • in the Consequences section: "The generals who had been hostile to him could see that the chance hadn't abandonned him." (The issue here is the contraction "hadn't" which should be replaced with "had not" and the typo "abandonned");
  • there is a mixture of British and US spelling, for example "honour" (British) in the Remembrance section, but "defenses" (US) in the Austrian attack section, "organized" (US) in the Remembrance section;
  • in the References section the second Hollins work should be formatted with the {{cite book}} template as all of the others are and it is currently not being presented in a consistent format;
  • in Consequences section, this clause "was minimised by Bonaparte who, from now on, would..." (issue here is the word "now", which I think creates a tense issue. I think it should be changed to "then" to maintain past tense);
  • in the Propaganda section, please check the spelling of "glamourized" - depending upon whether you decided to use US or British spelling (per above) it might need to be changed;
  • in the Propaganda section "captain Coignet" and "captain Gervais" - I think these should be capitalised as "Captain Coignet" and "Captain Gervais" as they are being used as titles/proper nouns in this case;
  • "Nowadays, a museum of the battle..." (The word "nowadays" sounds a bit informal to me. Perhaps you might say "Presently"). AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    • All done (I've opted for the British spelling). Andynomite (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Good work, you even fixed a few things I'd missed. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• There's an inconsistency with some of the page numbers being dotted/undotted in the refs YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Andynomite (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support -- made a couple of minor tweaks to hopefully improve prose (feel free to revert if I adversely altered any meaning) but generally this looks excellent, well-written/referenced/illustrated -- great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, your tweaks are most welcome. Andynomite (talk) 18:06, 28 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.

---

1964 South Vietnamese coup

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (new photo poll)

Another of the South Vietnamese coup set, this one widely attributed to the prodding of General Paul Harkins. Duong Van Minh was toppled, apparently because of reluctance to expand the Vietnam War YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 09:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—A1 citation presentation:

  References: Logevall, Fredrik (2006). Surely Roberts is editor, or is this a styling issue I'm unaware of as this is the second time I've encountered it in close succession on wiki, unattributed work producers read as "Authors" to me.

  Short citations: "The Overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem, May-November, 1963". The Pentagon Papers. (Given the well known nature of the work, and the wiki-link, I don't think it is worth grovelling for a full-citation of which Pentagon Papers you found it in :) ) Langguth, pp. 168&ndsah;170. broken wiki-markup. "Khanh releases 4 rival generals". The New York Times: p. 2. 1964-01-31. out of style. Grose, Peter (1964-05-31). page?

  Yay, more minutae of the RVN! Fifelfoo (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, there is a special thing in this case which makes the template not put (ed.) unless explicitly forced. Done. Fixed Langguth and also p2 for Grose. As far as the inconsistent format goes, the format is that "Author (date/year) .... later stuff" but if there is no author then the date doesn't go first but after the titles etc. This is what the template has done. So I think everythign is fixed or explained. I sent four ARVN ACRs through while you were away this year. Maybe you should write too as you seem to know stuff about it YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I dislike the date ordering with no author element of the template's automatic style, but if it is consistently styled by template and that's template style :). The (ed.) thing is a PITA too, but in that case I understand it more (trans., author, annot. etc.). My interest lies more in the DRVN than RVN, and in the RVN with the NFL/PRG, but, "I should really do that for my real job." Fifelfoo (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • no dab links, ext links work, alt text is present;
  • in the First moves section, "Colonel to General": these are being used as improper nouns, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms they should be lower case;
  • in the Notes section, Citation # 15 is to Jones, but there is no Jones listed in the References;
  • in the References section "Nguyen Tien Hung" I think should be "Hung, Nguyen Tien", as you have listed the short citation in the Notes section as "Hung and Schecter". AustralianRupert (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. I'm not sure about the last one. On Vietnamese ordered names, they are listed in default sort as just themselves generally "surname middle given" but always by their given name in short. Although technically it may seem inconsistent, and this has confused me :( YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No dramas, its only a minor thing. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support: my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - looks good on a quick read-through. Images are a tad on the smaller side. Any source for File:Harkins.jpg? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, removing as the sourcing is rather vague by theuploader YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:28, 20 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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 10:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

SMS Deutschland (1904)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Yet another German battleship - this was the lead ship of the last class of pre-dreadnoughts. I wrote this back in April and it passed a GA review at that time. I think this article is pretty close to A-class standards, hence the nomination. I look forward to working with the reviewers to ensure that this article meets MILHIST standards. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Technical stuff
  • No dab links, broken links or missing alt text. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- well written/cited/structured; just a couple of queries/suggestions:
  • After joining the German fleet, Deutschland was tactically assigned to the II Battle Squadron, though she was the fleet flagship and so not subordinate to the Squadron commander. -- do you mean "technically", rather than "tactically"?
    • Either would work; I chose tactically because that's what the source says. "Tactically she was assigned to II Squadron." Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Deutschland was slightly grounded in the Baltic... -- would "partially" be more correct than "slightly" (sounds better to me, anyway). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's much better. Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment -- "... Mausoleum of Prince Heinrich in Hemmelmark": According to the German Wiki article, Hemmelmark is an estate. Shouldn't it therefore read ... Mausoleum of Prince Heinrich on the Hemmelmark estate.? Sorry for this nerdy question. Well done! MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I had no idea what or where Hemmelmark is, so I guess your suggested wording would be better. I substituted it for the old version. Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment re A1, citation presentation, all good. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for checking those, Fifelfoo. Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • image is appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • Citation # 23 "Tarrant, pp. 246–7" I think should be "Tarrant, pp. 246–247" for consistency (e.g. #14, 15, 19 etc. use the full numbers);
  • two of the sources (Groner and Tarrant) in the References section have hyphenated ISBNs, but the others don't;
  • the Herwig source should have an endash for the year range. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• All issues fixed, thanks for finding those. Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Support

• Only one quibble, coal or oil-fired?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Added. Parsecboy (talk) 23:28, 22 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 07:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Bombing of Singapore (1944–1945)

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

I've been working on this article on a series of Allied air raids on Japanese-occupied Singapore during 1945 and 1945 and think that it may now meet the A class criteria. I'm seriously thinking of taking this to featured article status, so comments on how the article could be further improved (and edits to the article, of course!) would be very welcome. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Technical stuff:
  • No dab links, external links look fine, and alt text is present.
  • Images look fine, license-wise.

Parsecboy (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • in the Background section, "surrendered to the Japanese on 15 February following..." should probably have the year inserted into the date;
    • Good catch, done
  • in the Background section you have "they they" in the second paragraph, I wasn't exactly sure what word you wanted to include here, so I didn't tweak it, but the typo needs to be dealt with;
    • Fixed
  • in the intial attack section "1000 pound bombs" I think should be "1,000 pound bombs" for consistency of style as you have "20,000 feet";
    • Done
  • in the initial attack section, I think this "rendering it serviceable for three months" should be "rendering it unservicable..."
    • Yikes! Good catch. I blame my spell checker for that howler ;)
  • in the Later conventional raids section, this sentence is a little awkward: "On 7 March the attack the newspaper Syonan Shimbun reported that 396 people had been made homeless by the raid";
    • Tweaked - what do you think?
      • Yes, that looks fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • the ribbon template can be collapsed if you want by adding "|state=collapsed" to the tag in edit mode (I think it would look better that way, but it is just a suggestion). AustralianRupert (talk) 09:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Done - I was trying to remember how to do that. Thanks for those comments and changes to the article Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • No worries. Looks quite good. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment—A1, citation presentation quality: Looks great! Fifelfoo (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

  Books in Series: Kirby, S. Woodburn (1965). is a book in series, and ought to be consistently cited against the books in series Cate, James Lea (1953); Chilstrom, John S. (1993); Royal Navy (1995); Royal Navy (1995a); Royal Navy (1995b). Consider renaming Royal Navy (1995) (1995a) (1995b) to (1995a) (1995b) (1995c).

Done

• Place identifiers for uncommon places of publication: Mann, Robert A. (2009); Chilstrom, John S. (1993) fail to identify US state or Country of Origin. (Annapolis and Denton, are "gimmies" due to obvious locations of institutions, Chicago and London etc. need no identification unless it is a Chicago other than expected!)

Done

• Short citations: Hack and (2004) is misidentified, Hack and Blackburn (2004)?

Good catch - fixed

• Murfett, Malcolm H.; et al. : 3 or fewer authors? Have you considered using the English "and others"? I suggest this because of a style towards de-Latinisation in some quarters.

I'm reluctant to do that as 'et al.' was still the recommendation in the style guides I consulted last year when I went back to university.

• Very pleased with general quality of citation presentation. After a year away Milhist just gets better. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- straightforward, properly detailed/cited, well written. I dealt with a few little things that might have come up at FAC, so I don't see any major issues with taking it to the next level. One minor suggestion is to add a picture of a XX Command B-29 if available, for context. Anyway, well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ian, I'll see if I can find a good photo of XX Bomber Command B-29s (which is surprisingly hard!) Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - From the top
  • Infobox and Lead
    • Do we know the types of the ships that were sunk?
      • Unfortunately not
    • Given the length of the article, the lead could possibly be expanded a bit.
      • I've added a bit on the limited civilian casualties. However, I'm not great at writing leads, and a fresh pair of eyes on them really helps - could you please suggest anything to be included?
        • I've rethought this one out. I took a crack at it but couldn't expand it. Should be fine for now.
    • The first para of the lead mentions that after the USAAF shifted operations the RAF continued minelaying operations. Was the RAF doing minelaying while the USAAF was doing bombings as well?
      • The wording was unclear here - thanks for highlighting it. The RAF took over when the USAAF moved on; I've clarified this.
  • Background
    • last sentence, first para, get rid of that comma.
      • Done
    • There's a few cases of citations in the middle of sentences. Move them to after commas or periods.
      • Done
    • This section could benefit from a light copyedit.
      • Done (I think! - any further changes would be most welcome)
  • Raids: Initial Attacks
    • The section mentions that a drydock couldn't be used to repair Japanese battleships damaged at Leyte Gulf. Was this the event that led to the decision to withdraw Yamato, Nagato, Haruna and Kongo to the home islands? If so you should probably mention it, since it was a fairly large operation and if this influenced that decision that's fairly significant
      • I don't think so, and this isn't stated in any of the sources I could find. From memory, I think that those ships were returned to the home islands once the Japanese realised that the US had completely cut off merchant shipping between South East Asia and Japan and there were no benefits to be gained from stationing heavy fleet units in South East Asia as a result. As a side note, I was interested in writing an article on the operation in which the battleships were withdrawn to Japan a while ago but couldn't find any detailed sources - do you know of any?
        • I know of a couple here and there that could probably be useful. When I'm done w/ class today I'll raid Carleton's history section to see if they've got any more that could be helpful. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 14:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Raids: Later Conventional Raids
    • probably best to say "midnight of 10/11 January", rather than "midnight of 10 January" for the sake of cleaning up any ambiguity.
      • I think that would actually add ambiguity as it would make the date less clear - midnight on a specific date is a set time, and the timing was "around" midnight anyway so the proposed change would make unclear about whether this operation took place over one or two nights.
  • Raids: Minelaying near Singapore
    • It mentions that two battleships were damaged by minelaying operations. Which ones? Nothing I've read mentions minelaying damage to battleships that were still afloat at the time. From what I've read, Yamato was sunk, Nagato was held up by battle damage, Ise, Hyuga and Haruna were all stranded at Kure due to lack of fuel at that point.
      • The source is very reliable and gives interviews with two Japanese officers and what appears to be a volume of the strategic bombing survey as the citation for that statement, but you do seem to be correct and it wrong. I've removed the reference to the BBs being damaged.
  • Aftermath
    • No issues here.
• Fix these and I'll be happy to support. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 02:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for your great comments Cam - much appreciated. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - all of my concerns have been addressed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 14:31, 22 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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 07:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Courageous class aircraft carrier

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I've incorporated many of the suggestions made on the related articles and I think that it's ready. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—A1, citation presentation quality:

  General Sub-edit: Friedman, Norman (1988). Extraneous full-stop in title. Nailer, Roger (1990). Is Gardiner perhaps Editor?

  • Friedman fixed; Gardiner is the editor, that's the way the template displays it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

  Short citations: Jenkins, front endpaper. Could specify p. front endpaper for clarity? "Britain 2-pdr [4 cm/39 (1.575") Mark VIII"]. apparent failure of wiki-markup.

  • Fixed.

  All else good. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Technical stuff
  • No dab links or broken external links.
  • Alt text missing from infobox image. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Support - I did some copyediting and spotted no glaring errors. Image concerns: I can't find the lead image here, so I can't ensure that it is from the USN. File:HMS Glorious last picture.jpg has the same problem, except I can't find it on their site period. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The NHHC website does not have a good selection of the Navy's photographs available. But if it's got a NH# I'm fully prepared to believe that it was scanned from a book.

• Comments - from the top, section by section:
  • Infobox and Lead
    • The Infobox puts their service careers as 1921-1945, yet the subpage for Furious has her being commissioned a full four years earlier, at which point she was considered a hybrid aircraft-carrier/cruiser (she's properly considered the first aircraft carrier ever built).
      • I don't think it's necessary to split out Furious from her sisters in that regard. Infobox is intended for a quick summary. Whether she's the first aircraft carrier built is certainly disputable and largely depends on your definition of an aircraft carrier. Many seaplane carriers were in service before she was, some with flight decks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The infobox also says that they carried 48 aircraft. Do we know what the breakdown of their standard air-group was, or was it constantly shifting?
      • That's discussed in the air group section.
    • Somewhere in the lead, I'd link Courageous class battlecruiser.
      • Done.
    • Mention in the lead what year Furious started her reconstruction
      • Done.
    • Third paragraph, mention and link that it was U-29 that sank Courageous
      • That information is too detailed for the lede; it's presented in the paragraph about her (brief) service in WW2.
        • You never know. When I wrote Yamato class battleship, I mentioned that Archerfish sank Shinano in the third para of the lead. You don't have to go into all the gory details, but I'd mention that it was U-29. Your call though...
    • Same thing with Glorious, mention that it was Schanhorst and Gneisenau that sank her.
      • See above.
  • Careers as battlecruisers
    • Mention what year the Washington Naval Treaty was signed (we know it's 1922, but it's good to repeat those things outside the lead for context's sake)
  • Conversions
    • The second paragraph of Furious's conversion mentions that the arresting gear weren't used for slowing down aircraft, and then the third paragraph says that no arresting gear were fitted. My guess is it's just a terminology confusion problem, but either way it's confusing the hell out of me.
      • Clarified.
  • Description
    • The ships had a complete double bottom.[11][12] is one of the shortest sentences I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Could it somehow be combined in the previous sentence just so it's not so abrupt?
      • What, you didn't like being wrenched out of the flow? <grin> fixed.
  • Armament
    • What are "PI Mounts", as mentioned in the first paragraph of the Armament Section on Furious?
      • Pivot Mark I*, but I'll just delete their type; it's simpler.
    • I'd suggest keeping number/letter measurements consistent. You put on as "5.5-inch guns" and the other as "four-inch guns". While either one's ok, it's good to be consistent with them.
      • Indeed.
    • In the sentence They fired a 4-inch (100 mm) 31-pound (14 kg) high explosive shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,387 ft/s (728 m/s) at a rate of ten to fifteen rounds per minute., saying "they fired a 4-inch" is redundant. It's the 4-inch guns we're talking about; if they were firing something other than 4-inch projectiles I'd be worried.
    • Same thing with The Mark VIII gun fired a 4.7-inch (119 mm) 50-pound (23 kg) high explosive (HE) shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,457 ft/s (749 m/s) at a rate of eight to twelve rounds per minute., we know the diameter of the shells they're firing; it's implied by the gun diameter.
      • I was trying to work in a conversion somewhere in the text.
  • Fire control
    • No issues here.
  • Protection
    • Again, no issues.
  • Air Groups
    • You keep talking about "two groups of fighters, etc", without mentioning how large a group actually was in terms of the actual number of planes.
      • Groups, no. Flights and Squadrons, yes. The sizes of these units varied tremendously so I didn't want to try for any sort of precision. Best I can suggest is to divide the capacity by the number of units, which will get you an average size.
        • Fair enough. The American and Japanese carriers have the same problem.
  • Pre-war Service
    • Do we have a slightly more specific date on when transverse arresting gear was fitted on Furious than "the mid-1930's"
      • Oddly enough, no.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • World War II Service
    • No issues. This section is very comprehensive and superbly well-written. Well done!
      • Thank you, kind sir.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Fix these issues and I'll be happy to support. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - all my issues above have been addressed. A thoroughly-comprehensive article; sets the standard for carrier articles. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: just be careful of mixing US and British English variations. I found a couple during a quick read. For example, US spelling "self-defense" in the Description section; "organized" in the Second World War section. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed those; please point out any others. My eyes tend to gloss right over them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
    • That's all I could find. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments:

• Lead, "She was given...no superstructure (also known as an "island") to create air turbulence". This could be read as she was given no superstructure in order to create air turbulence, although I'm fairly sure you mean the exact opposite. Reword?
  • Done.
• Air groups, "and had more room to mix things up.". Colloquial/unencyclopedic language.
  • Fixed.
• Pre-war service, "in September 1938 she embarked 801, 821 and 822 Squadrons". This just doesn't sound grammatical - is it ship jargon?
  • Not jargon per se, but how British aircraft squadrons are typically named. No ordinal or article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Second World War: Furious - "departed on 15 April, flying reconnaissance missions". She didn't fly reconnaissance missions, the planes aboard her did.
  • This is one of those anthropomorphic issue regarding ships that I seem to be more comfortable with than most people. Fixed.
• Same section, "Following her last ferry mission she was sent to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to refit." Why was a British ship sent to the US for a refit?
  • Unknown, but likely because the repair yards in the UK were full.
• Same section, "spent the next three months working up." Doing what?
  • Umm, training? Unspecified in my sources.
    • Sorry, I should have been more specific. What does "working up" mean? It's not a term I have heard before.
      • Ah, I've linked it to a new definition in the glossary of nautical terms.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Same section, "Tirpitz was hit 14 times so that she was under repair for". "So that she was"? Is there any way to reword that?
  • Done.
• Same section, "although four aircraft were lost." Whose?
  • Fixed
    • This still doesn't say whose aircraft they were. The current sentence could be read either as "they were attacked and lost four aircraft" or "they attacked and lost four aircraft". See?
      • Offhand I'm not sure if the aircraft were lost to German fighters or flak. I'd figured that since the only aircraft mentioned earlier in the para were British that it was implicit that the aircraft lost were also British.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Same section, "Three operations...had to be abandoned or diverted to other targets in May,". Why?
  • • Combination of weather and alerted German defences.
• As far as I can tell, the Chesneau ref is not used in the notes, but is listed in the references.
  • Deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall, it looks good, but needs a few tweaks before I can support. Dana boomer (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There are still a couple of things I would like to see tweaked, but they are minor, so changing to support. Dana boomer (talk) 14:32, 19 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 05:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

John Kourkouas

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

Hello! This is the second nomination of this article (the first one can be found here). The major outstanding issue in the previous nomination was prose quality, which I believe to have been rectified, with the invaluable help of Auntieruth55... Constantine ✍ 06:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—A1 citation presentation quality: Treadgold, Warren T. (1997), surely doesn't require the location information, and the UP contains the location and is sufficiently known not to require one in any case. Harvard CMES, unless given on the bibliographic page of the work as such, might deserve to be spelled out in full, to indicate that it is a unit of the University taking publication responsibility, not the UP or the University as a whole? fn59 needs to indicate which of the two cited works provided the translation? Did you (or another editor) actually visibly site Niebuhr (1838) or was Niebuhr quoted in Holmes (2005)? ie: Translation Niebuhr (1838) as cited in Holmes (2005) if you didn't view Niebuhr and Niebuhr produced the translation. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

On the locations, some reviewers require them even when it is self-evident, others don't, so I usually leave them. I spelled out the CMES, a good point. On the translated part, it is translated straight from Niebuhr's edition of the text (i.e. from the original Greek), since Holmes' version is incomplete (the quote she provides begins after "became..."). There exists no translation of Theophanes Continuatus in English, do I translated it myself, and added Holmes as a sort of "verification". I am not sure what the proper procedure is here, though... Constantine ✍ 05:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy with this explanation! Fifelfoo (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• SupportComments:
  • no dab links, ext links all work (no action required);
  • some images have alt text, but others don't (not required, but suggestion only);
  • some of the ISBNs appear to hyphenated differently to the others, could these be standardised please?
  • File:Melitene by the Byzantines in 934 from the Chronicle of John Skylitzes.jpg needs some sourcing information, I think;
  • the Advisor script reports that a few of the ISBNs may not be correct (e.g Jenkins, Treadgold 1997, Treadgold 1998, and Whittow), could you please investigate and adjust if necessary?
  • in some places you appear to have used a space endash (e.g. in the Early life and career section) but then elsewhere an unspaced emdash (e.g. in the Campaigns in Mesopotamia section). Either is fine per the MOS, but they should be consistent. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the ISBNs, writing them as they are written on the books themselves. On those that might be wrong, I copied them straight from the books, but for some reason, the 978 seems to confuse the script. If you remove it, it presents no problems. I also added info on the image. I don't know where the original uploader got it from, but it is PD either way. I'll fix the dash problems next... Constantine ✍ 16:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I fixed the endash issue, it was only this instance. BTW, alt text exists in every image. Only for some reason someone had removed the "alt=" parameter from it. Constantine ✍ 10:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Very good prose. I have never imagined that he did all this. Villick (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :) Indeed, Kourkouas is one of the least known of history's great generals. I hope that this article will contribute to rectifying this... Constantine ✍ 16:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Support Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Support Very well written/sourced/illustrated, shows careful attention to detail. Given this is A-Class, there might be a small quibble with Nothing further is known about him. not actually being cited -- does no source say that explicitly? In any case, very well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. As to the quibble, unfortunately, all sources either end their account with his dismissal in 944 (ODB, Runciman), or go on to mention his rehabilitation under Constantine VII and the 946 embassy (Guilland), but then fall into silence. It is evident that nothing more is known, but I cannot find an explicit statement to cite from. Constantine ✍ 11:16, 17 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.

---

Consensus to promote Woody (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Kirishima

Nominator(s): Cam ^(Chat)(Prof)

The third of the Kongo class battlecruisers, sunk at the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal in one of the two battleship duals of the pacific war. This article has undergone a gradual rewrite; recently passed a thorough GA. As such I am nominating for A-Class. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 05:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Sandy's post at WT:SHIPS suggests to me that to keep doing well at FAC, we're going to need more copyeditors who are in some sense independent of SHIPS. Not sure how we'll accomplish that, but one thing I can do is to do more with edit summaries and notes here at ACR, to give copyeditors the information they need. Up til now, most of my edit summaries have been "ce", because otherwise, I was afraid it would come across too much like your mother saying, "Sit up straight, eat your vegetables, comb your hair ...". If it gets annoying, don't look :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Edit summary away. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 05:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• "She was the third ship of her class, and was designed by British naval engineer George Thurston." Some problems here. "her class" is an EGG problem (named after Easter egg (media)), unless we're saying "lead ship of her class". We were also criticized recently at FAC for linking things twice (not sure how far that extends ... some of you may want to just avoid linking things twice within a section or two, but I aim not to link anything twice in the same article, it's safer at FAC.) If you write "her class", then sooner or later you're going to have to link Kongo class battlecruiser, and the two links to the same article may (or may not) draw attention at FAC. Next problem: there's going to be disagreement on whether "and was" should be removed on grounds of tightness. I went with: "Designed by British naval engineer George Thurston, she was the third launched of the four Kongō-class battlecruisers." - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Traditionally, my approach has been to link things in the lead, then once again in the article, and that's it. I viewed the lead and the body as being distinct from one another, and I know that MoS with regards to linking used to work that way as well. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 05:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

From a selfish point of view, I prefer the one-link-per-article approach: when I'm reading through an article quickly checking the links, I can manage to remember if a link has appeared before; I can't remember if it's appeared once, twice or more. Recently at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/SMS_König/archive1, we were criticized for linking "High Seas Fleet" in the first section after linking it in the lead section. OTOH, this isn't consistently policed at FAC, and many FAs have double links. With annoying little details like this, I try to keep it real: some editors are very interested in FAC even with all the little annoying rules, and many of our best copyeditors are trying to learn and follow FAC, so unless it's important to me (and this isn't), I try to avoid doing things that are going to draw a comment at FAC, from anyone, just to keep everyone happy. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• We're very inconsistent on Armament and Armor sections, which is fine with me, but I'm wondering if we couldn't be a little more outsider-friendly. Ed leaves those sections out of Rivadavia and Moreno, leaving those details to the class article. This article has one short Armament section. Sturmvogel tends to go into some detail. I'm concerned that when we're recruiting copyeditors, they'll stop on the first section and think, "I don't know anything about this, and I don't want to know anything about this". Would it be possible to make Armament a separate section and put it at the very end of the article? Even though that's not chronological, I think for most readers it would help rather than hurt the flow. - Dank (push to talk) 21:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

When I started writing battleship articles, I based my layout for the article on what Tom had done with the Iowa class articles, which had a small "armament" section that just gave a brief overview of the weapons without going into as much detail as the class article itself. That said, I can easily shift the location of that section within the article to the end if need be. I can appreciate that a copyeditor who feels they know little about the subject just gives up (it's why I don't tend to copyedit articles to do with astrophysics!). Feel free to move. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 05:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I like to recapitulate most of the infobox in a design and description section, although I sometimes leave out any description of the armor. If you do that then the armament section doesn't look lonely and out of place. To my mind the class article gets the detailed info on the evolution of the design and the description of the ship with a brief summary of the history of all the ships. The individual ship article is the mirror image with the focus on the history of the ship, although I obviously disagree with several people as to the appropriate amount of information suitable for a ship article. To my mind, for this class of ships, it's harder to get a feel for just how massively they were reconstructed unless you have a decent description of them as originally completed. In this case you could do this in the main body, or, perhaps, by adding another infobox; one showing as built and the other as of the last reconstruction.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I never thought of two infoboxes before. That might be a great way to make sure the information is present (and sourced as needed) without putting off readers and copyeditors (and possibly FAC reviewers) with the technical detail. If it's in an infobox, people will ignore it if they want to. Yes, I think I like this suggestion better than my suggestion, although I'm not sure if anyone's going to agree with me. - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• A copyeditor might notice that the majority of modern sources refer to ships as "it", and AP Stylebook recommends "it" (at "boats"). But most of our ship writers prefer "she", and I think there's some wiki-logic to that. What Wikipedia has that other references don't is a sense that the text is by, for and about people who are close to the material. Sailors who had to trust their lives to their ships always anthropomorphized their ships, and sources that rely on first-person accounts also tend to say "she". I draw the line when we start ascribing intentions to ship, but "she" seems relatively harmless and "authentic" to me. WP:MOSSHIP allows consistent use of "she" or "it". - Dank (push to talk) 22:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, I based this somewhat off the precedent set by Tom when he wrote the Iowa . MOS allows either one so long as it's consistent, so I tend to anthropomorphize my warships. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 05:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I can't decide; does it make more sense to say that she was equipped with floatplanes, or equipped with flying-off platforms for floatplanes? - Dank (push to talk) 23:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Depends which modernization you're talking about. With the first one, she was basically given a crane and floatplanes, so they were lowered into the water and then took off themselves. With the second, she was fitted with launch catapults and a crane. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 05:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I goofed here. I was just saying that it didn't sound right to me to say that a ship was equipped with a plane, since a plane isn't "gear"; I could be wrong. My dictionaries are no help, except that Webster's NWD gives "outfitted" in the definition. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I believe we had a source in Japanese battleship Haruna that said that these were the most heavily armed ships in any navy at the time; is that right? Do we have that ref here somewhere? - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert Jackson, The World's Great Battleships (2000). P. 48. "The Kongo class, displacing 27,940 tonnes...mounted eight 355mm and 16 152mm guns and could make 30 knots. They carried a complement of 1437 and outclassed all other contemporary ships". That's the one I used for that particular cite in Haruna. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 05:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Okay it's your call; whatever you think is most supported in the text is what should go in the lead; that might be "outclassed" or "most heavily armed" or something else. - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Btw, per ref #7, that same page supports the "most heavily armed" bit. - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I removed "fast" from "fast carrier" in the lead because I thought it might confuse readers without a link, and I couldn't find a link. If you can define or link it, great, otherwise I'd recommend removing the "fast" in the rest of the article. We do link "fast battleship" so that's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 03:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. By the time WWII floats into the periscope, I've never heard of non-fast fleet carriers. The distinction was mostly used when the British and French had old carriers that were converted from battleships that were far slower than those converted from faster battlecruisers and newer carriers (The French Bearn comes to mind. She could only make 21.5 knots; barely capable of launching and landing aircraft). Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 05:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This does come into play somewhat with the U.S., although the distinction there was between the Essex-class fast carriers and the smaller CVLs (so-called "Jeep" carriers based on the Liberty ship hulls). I don't know how common the term is within nautical-focused histories, but I have seen them called "fast carriers" in works about Leyte Gulf. I've also seen TF 38/58 called the "Fast Carrier Task Force" in Wiki entries, so I would assume that using "fast carrier" here is acceptable.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I like "Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia)" but I got reverted to "Dutch East Indies"; it's your call. It's standard in American newspapers to provide geographical references that people are likely to know if you're talking about an older name for a country or a small location the readers may not have heard of. Our naming convention is at WP:NCGN#Alternate names, and although that's specifically referring to page titles, by convention it's relevant whenever you're talking about something that is or could be a page title. The issue is that most readers don't click on links most of the time, even when they don't know what something means without the link, and most readers don't know 60-year-old names for countries, so in most cases, not giving the modern name leaves readers without a clue. I don't have a problem leaving out a modern name when inserting it triggers POV edits, but that's not true here. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• I have no problem with people using {{ship}}, {{sclass}}, {{USS}}, etc., but in my experience, editors are not memorizing the 30+ number parameters, so they make every possible mistake with these templates, including linking a ship it when it's already been linked. If we can attract more copyeditors, they'll catch this stuff, but new copyeditors are not going to memorize the templates, they're going to leave it for you guys to fix. Just sayin'. If you could reduce the number of parameters and only use the templates when you feel it's necessary, that might help. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't tend to use the templates for that exact reason. Their markup syntax just gets too complex for me to comprehend after a while. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 22:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• In general, we should use the most specific link available. Mitsubishi was just added one place and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries another; probably, both should be Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, without linking the second. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Links are appearing and disappearing so I won't tackle it now, but sometime before FAC, my advice is to link anything that a reader unfamiliar with ships isn't likely to know, and only link things once. - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted. Will do before FAC. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 22:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• You start off hyphenating "Kongō-class battlecruisers", and then the hyphen comes and goes after that. Most SHIPS people hyphenate it. If you hyphenate, it's "Yamashiro- and Ise-class battleships" or ""Yamashiro-class and Ise-class battleships" or "battleships in the Yamashiro and Ise classes". - Dank (push to talk) 00:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer to go with the first option. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 22:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Should "front faces of her turrets" be "forward faces"? - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Support, per usual disclaimer, although it won't pass FAC without attention to some of the problems I mentioned. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 04:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • no dab links, ext links all work (no action required);
  • images do not have alt text, and although it is not a requirement, you might consider adding it in (suggestion only);
  • I think that the images I licenced correctly, but it might pay to have someone with a bit more knowledge in this area take a look;
  • there is a mixture of date formats used in the article, for instance in the lead "7 December 1941", but in the infobox "March 17, 1912". All the dates should be consistent format, although it doesn't matter which format you use;
    • Fixed this. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References section, some of the ISBNs have hyphens while others don't. I think these should all have a consistent style;
    • Style has been made consistent. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • the Advisor script reports that the ISBNs for the Schom work and the book by Wilmott & Keegan might not be correct, can you please investigate and rectify if necessary?
    • Investigated. Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Citations section you have a "Jackson 2007" source, but it doesn't seem to appear in the References section;
    • Should be "Jackson 2008", my mistake. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Can you please take a look at this again? I don't think this has been fixed. The issue is that you have citations that say Jackson (2000) [Citation #7 for example]; Jackson (2007) [Citation #4] and Jackson (2008) [Citation # 17], but in the Reference list you only have the full bibliographic details for Jackson (2000). This indicates that multiple works by Jackson have been cited, but there are currently only full bibliographic details for one of these. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Whoopsies. I've added the other book. My bad. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 02:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Citations section, Citation # 2 uses italics for "Parshall, Jon; Bob Hacket, Sander...etc", but Citation # 3 & 6 do not. If these are authors, and not the publishers then they shouldn't be in italics, but if they are the publishers then they should be (I think, either way it should be consistent). AustralianRupert (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
    • These are the authors and the publishers. For consistency, I've de-italicized them. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I'll get to these as quickly as I can, though that probably won't be until the weekend. I'm moving across the country for school tomorrow, so I'll be unavailable for a few days. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comments -
  • What happened to the ship after it sank? was it raised and scrapped or is it still there? is it used as a dive site, ect.
  • Who rescused the surviving crew? Were they captured or saved by Japanese vessels?
  • Nobutake Kondō, the commander of this vessel, survived the battle it might be useful to mention that he was not among the dead.XavierGreen (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments This is a very strong article, but I think that some of its wording needs to be improved for the article to reach A class:
  • "a line of capital ships" - the term 'line' seems a bit odd here. 'Type' perhaps?

Changed to "a group of capital ships", though I suppose "type" would work just as well. I always viewed type as being indicative of the distinction between battleship/battlecruiser, whereas different lines of ships were different classes; i'm just trying to avoid using "class" four-hundred times. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 14:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• • What's 'flash-tightness'?

In my reading of the term both here and elsewhere, it has to do with the ability to seal the various components of the turret and magazine off from one another. For example, the Royal Navy concluded that poor flash-tightness was one of the big problems with their battlecruisers at Jutland. That said, I haven't been able to find a hard-and-fast definition of the term so far. I'll keep looking. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 14:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• • "The main guns carried ammunition for ninety shots" - surely this ammunition wasn't stored in the guns. I'd suggest something like 'The ship's magazines could accodate ninety rounds of ammunition for each of the main guns".

Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 14:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• • "During her reconstruction, the 3" guns were removed and replaced..." - which of the two reconstructions was this? (the first, I assume)

The second reconstruction actually. The first was primarily an armour/propulsion upgrade. Most of the serious armament reworking happened in the 1930's. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 14:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• • What's 'Third Reserve'?

My guess is a designation of "First Reserve Fleet", "Second Reserve Fleet", and "Third Reserve Fleet"; basically what order you call ships up from reserve in. I could be wrong though. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 14:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• • The last sentence in the para which begins with "Six days after Kirishima's reconstruction" needs a citation

Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 14:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• • The para which begins 'On 11 November 1941' is unreferenced Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Partially because I don't want to over-rely on combinedfleet, this one may take a wee bit of time. I'm away from my bookshelves for the next month, and I only brought about 20 books with me to uni. I'll take a look around Carleton Library later today and see what I find. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 14:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • The collision with Fuji during fleet maneuvers, do we know who was responsible for that and if anyone aboard Kirishima wound up sacked as a result?
  • If you can find a way to sneak it into the last paragraph on the death of Kirishima, I would suggest noting that Washington was commanded by Willis Augustus Lee. Lee's intimate understanding of radar help him maneuver Washington into a position to wail on Kirishima, and this was of curse a factor in the death Kirishima. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—A1 citation quality:

  Bibliography: Hammel, Eric (1988). spell out location to meet style you're using. Jackson, Robert (2000). missing location. Willmott, H.P. & Keegan, John [1999] (2002). Smithsonian Books isn't as well known as UPs, may require location information (nice use of original year!).

I'll get to work finding the locations. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• References made without citation or bibliography, consider based on nature of the reference works (I for one haven't heard of Kirishima's Combined Fleet before today), Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships; Kirishima's Combined Fleet. Gets worse, you footnote references to these, the footnotes should indicate "as cited in..." and "as cited in..." respectively unless you sighted the original work yourself (or another wikipedia editor did so), in which case the originals should also be cited in those footnotes.

I'm following Wikipedia MoS with regards to how I've formatted the citations for combinedfleet and Conway's. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Short citations: Willmott (2002), p. 35. Remove year to meet your style (year only when multiple works by same author), or add year to all short cites. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Nice presentation of a work in series: Morison, Samuel Eliot (1958).

• Support - a fantastic article IMO. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 11:31, 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.

---

Consensus to promote Woody (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1943

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel that it meets the criteria. The article follows the same layout as the 1940–1941 and 1942 lists. Regarding the images, please note that I only added those pictures with appropriate rational. I tried to point to all the discrepancies in the sources by listing these as footnotes. Therefore please pay close attention to the footnotes section. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm, intro seems fine, one thing I'd like to comment on is the reasons they recieved the award. I know that writing a reason section would be a vast task, considering the amount of awards given out, the references available and the amount of awards given to people who had racked up brownie points with Hitler. I'm not going to hold this point against you now, but , in the future, you could try to re-edit the lists, throwing in shortened citations, as in List of Medal of Honor recipients. Just a thought.
• For Karl Willing, #179, his position is listed as commander of the II./Grenadier-Regiment 120 (mot.). What does mot. mean? Could you possibly link it? I find seven other instances of it in the article.

• stands for a motorized unit, I changed it MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Red link filling could be done, but I don't know if all of them are that notable.

• Even FLC only requires 80 to 90% coverage. I think this is given MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• The Swords greater than 143 are in quotation marks, not brackets. But that's a very minor error.

Everything else looks fine. I envy your ability to read German. Buggie111 (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Last thing: Hans-Ulrich Rudel is listed as getting the 1st Golden Oak Leaves. Since he was the only one awarded the Golden Oak Leaves, shouldn't the Notes section say awarded only Golden Oak Leaves on December 29, 1944. Buggie111 (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• No, because the sources list him as first recipient and as the law indicates it could have been awarded 12 times. This is compliant with all the major sources (Fellgiebel, Scherzer, Obermaier, Range, Kretschmer) on the Knight's Cross MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Buggie111 (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

*One thing entries 186 and 187 for example - 186 is written as the commander of the battalion while 187 is the leader of the battalion. Is this some strange German terminology or should they both be battalion commanders ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• • I'm wildly guessing that commander meas the guy who sits around at the HQ, while leader means the guy who leads them in battle. I think I'm wrong, though. Buggie111 (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Support --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The subtle difference between leader and commander is similar to Staffelkapitän and Staffelführer in the Luftwaffe. The leader is either a deputy position or still in a period of probation. Unlike the Medal of Honor, there is no official or even unofficial citation accompanying the award. So it would be very difficult if not impossible to write a reason for the award. In some instances you may find some information on the reason if you research the biography of the individuals themselves. MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments—A1 citation presentation quality:

  Fraschka, Günther (1994). is given in the bibliography but not used in short citations.

  Berger, Florian (1999). given but not used. Also suspect SELF published.

• Both moved to further reading section MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Is Selbstverlag Florian Berger sufficiently well known as a publisher to not need location information?

• Added location MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• For those of us without German, a translation of the titles in the bibliography would be very handy?

  If only we could compress your notes and your citations into one?

  Incorrect citation of Reichsgesetzblatt Teil, original publisher and location not given, yes, even for government sources (ie: the ministry or department as given on each publication). The electronic reprint is given perfectly, and should still remain.

• Thanks, fixed as well MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support:
  • no dab links, ext links work and alt text is present (no action required);
  • I think the wording for Note # 14 should be tweaked as the language is a little awkward, e.g. use of the contraction "hadn't"; "also not mentioned" (needs something added to it such as "also it is not mentioned..."); "proposed him" (not sure if proposed is the correct word, perhaps "presented him the award", or "invested"). AustralianRupert (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Note:Below support offered after closure. Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:37, 15 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.

---

---

Passed the ACR, accepting only 3 supports for passage in lieu of no opposes to the ACR. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Camp Chapman attack

Nominator(s):   Cs32en Talk to me 

Prior nomination here.

I am nominating this article for A-Class review, as the Camp Chapman attack was one of the most important attacks against the United States Central Intelligence Agency. It is considered to be the most lethal attack against the CIA since the bombing of the CIA station in Beirut. The article has been reviewed by MBK004 (talk · contribs). I have nominated the article for A-Class before, and some problems have been fixed during the review process. However, as the review had not been completed within 28 days, the article has not been promoted at that point. In the mean time, some links for references have turned inoperative. I have removed these URLs, but left the references in the text. These sources were available online at the time the information has been used to write the article, and the sources should still be available off-line.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the dead URLs, have you tried to find an archived page, such as Internet Archive? bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! Yes, I did. For the press agency releases that have been available at the New York Times website, the search produces the message "We're sorry, access to http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/05/world/AP-ML-Jordan-CIA-Afghan-Attack.htm has been blocked by the site owner via robots.txt." The other links, which are Google cache results, do not seem to be available on the archive either. Sometimes, article titles change, and maybe there is a copy of one of the articles on the net somewhere. However, such copies may well be copyvios, so we couldn't link to them anyway.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: Legal copies of some of the sources may exist at other news sites. For example, a copy of the AP release above seems to be available at FOX News. I'm going to look for further such copies in the next few days.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done I have replaced the dead URLs with links to other websites. As these are all well-known reliable sources, we can probably assume that these are not copyvios.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:

• no dab links, external links work, alt text is present (no action required);

 Fixed (Nothing to do.)  Cs32en Talk to me  10:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• images seem correctly licenced (no action required);

 Fixed (Nothing to do.)  Cs32en Talk to me  10:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• there is a mixture of terminology, sometimes you use "Camp Chapman", at other times "Forward Operating Base Chapman", these should be consistent;

 Done I have changed the term "Camp" to "Forward Operating Base" in the text. Reliable sources use both terms, but this is the official name of the compound.  Cs32en Talk to me  10:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• there are a few contractions, e.g. "wasn't" and "doesn't" which should be reworded unless they are in direct quotes;

 Done I have expanded the contractions.  Cs32en Talk to me  10:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• the article has a mixture of US and British English, for instance "defence" in the Intial reports section, but also "defense" in the Jordanian reaction section. You need to make these consistent. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and advice! I'll address the issues in the next few days. As I'm not a native English speaker (neither US nor British), I may need some help with regard to the last item in the list. I'll try to check the article for possible problems in that respect, and list them here if I'm not sure what action to take.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've rectified any examples I could find of British English (except in the titles of sources, where they should stay as is). I think I got them all. Regards. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed (No further action required.)  Cs32en Talk to me  10:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support: my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment The lead is too short with so much information in the body. There are a lot of short 1-line paragraphs, and the newspaper listings in the refs are inconsistnent, only some are italicised YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've expanded the lead.  Cs32en Talk to me  11:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

 Question: In some cases, the content of short paragraphs cannot be merged with other paragraphs, because it refers to a different aspects of the topic of the respective section. It also cannot be extended, either because that would give undue weight to its content, or because there is no additional verifiable information available. In these cases, I have rather left the short paragraphs in the text. I would suggest to discuss this problem on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis, so that the best action can be taken with regard to each case.  Cs32en Talk to me  11:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed (Probably no further action necessary.) I have grouped some more short paragraphs into longer paragraphs (i.e. in the lead). In my view, the length of the paragraphs in the current version is appropriate. I would revisit the issue, of course, if there are concerns about this aspect of the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've changed some instances in which "publisher" had been used instead of "journal". All names of journals should now appear in italics.  Cs32en Talk to me  11:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have done some minor restructuring with regard to some paragraphs and sub-sections.  Cs32en Talk to me  11:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Redlinks: Does anyone have an idea how to turn the red link to Chemical fingerprint blue? It refers to issues that are described, for example, in U.S. Bomb Data Center#Explosives Tracing, but I haven't been able to find a separate article on this.  Cs32en Talk to me  11:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Two suggestions, (1) you could write a quick stub for chemical fingerprint, or (2) just pipe the link, as per what I have done here: chemical fingerprint. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

 Question: In this instance, piping the link may be understood to suggest that the U.S. Bomb Data Center would be somehow involved in this, or that methods used by that institution would have been used. I have replaced "chemical fingerprint" with "chemical composition". While that may be a weaker term than "chemical fingerprint", referring to explosives tracers, or analysis of isotopes, may well be exagerrating what the claim actually is about, so it's better to err on the side of caution here. Is that change appropriate, in your view?  Cs32en Talk to me  15:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In this case I'd suggest just using whatever the exact term in the source may be, otherwise we are providing our on interpretation which might not necessarily be correct. My own understanding of the concept of chemical fingerprint is limited, so I'm not really sure, sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it back from "chemical composition" to "chemical fingerprint" (without the red link). "Chemical fingerprint" is a colloquial term that is being used to describe the contents of a mixture of chemicals, and may include their relative shares in the substance. Often, the focus is not only on the main components, but also on traces or by-products from the production of the substance. I have not included that section into the article, and the content is based on two sources that may well have a an anti-Pakistani (pro-India in the case of ANI, pro-Russia in the case of Posner) slant. So I would also agree to remove that section. If we would start a discussion on removing the section, we should inform the editor who added the content, however.  Cs32en Talk to me  11:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Henry A. Crumpton is a redlink in some other articles, too. I have therefore retained the redlink in this article.  Cs32en Talk to me  11:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed (No further action required, as this appears to be uncontroversial.)  Cs32en Talk to me  22:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 14:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment—A1, citation presentation quality: Pedantic nitpickery: "The Times (London)." No, just no. Oxford: Oxford University Press makes sense, they publish through New York as well. The Times is simply that newspaper which is published in London called The Times, it requires no appellations of location as all other newspapers called simply The Times must clarify that they are not The Times. Feel free to ignore. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A bot has added this to the article. It also changed some other references, in this article, as well as in other articles. If the link doesn't work, i.e. on a print-out of the page, it may be helpful to have the precise information that this is The Times, published in London, and not The Times, published elsewhere. But this seems to be a far-fetched justification for the addition.  Cs32en Talk to me  08:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, do you remember the bot's name so I can go have words with it? Fifelfoo (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the diff of the edit.  Cs32en Talk to me  13:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've chased down the cause of this. Readers may be interested in Template_talk:Cite_news#Proposed_modification_of_Template_documentation_in_relation_to_The_Times Fifelfoo (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've removed the location from references to The Times of London. (Let's see whether the bot will add them back or not.)  Cs32en Talk to me  22:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I picked up a couple of points that might be worth considering if you intend to take it further (ie FAC):

• Why does the background section come after the information about the attack rather than before it?

Thank you for your suggestions on improving the article! I don't know whether there is any policy or guideline on the ordering of sections (i.e. based on content, not formal considerations). My viewpoint is that Wikipedia is not a history textbook, and many people would know at least some of the background. They would probably be more interested in the specific event. Placing the background first also may introduce a tendency to present the text like a story. But if it's well done, it may work.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to apply summary style more robustly to trim down the amount of content in some areas?

Some content has been outsourced, and it's probably possible to relegate more content to sub-articles. This may also be possible with regard to the background section. I basically haven't touch those articles that are related to the background section. Also, as these related articles are not subarticles, the content in this article is an excerpt of relevant content rather than a summary of these other articles. I would prefer to leave the article as it is, for the time being. There have been some controversial discussions about a number of minor changes to the article, and the stability of the current version indicates that the current version, while not perfect, proabably addresses all legitimate viewpoints and concerns about the content.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

However, I believe this interesting and well-researched article meets our current A-Class criteria. Nice job :) EyeSerene^talk 08:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your positive assessment of the article! Taking the article to an FAC nomination, however, may well be a major challenge, given the scarcity of (well-researched) sources, as well as images, about the event.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:48, 11 September 2010 (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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 15:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Nguyen Chanh Thi

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (new photo poll)

A South Vietnamese general who was involved in repeated coup attempts in the 1960s. The final part of his military career was a power struggled against Nguyen Cao Ky and sparked a pseudocivil war and he was finally exiled to the US in mid 1966 after Ky won YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • no dab links, ext links all work, alt text is present (no action required);
  • images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • in the Early life section, I think you should explicitly state the date that Thi was born, otherwise the reader has to scroll back up to the lead or the infobox to find it out;
  • there appears to be a mixture of US and British English, for example "organised" and "organized";
    • Good work with this, you picked up a few that I completely missed. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • you have used different date formats, for example "21 October" and then "November 14" (in the 1964 coups with Nguyen Khanh section), I think that you should be consistent in the format used;
  • in the Exile section, in the last sentence, I think you should explicitly state the date that Thi passed away, as it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the prose;
  • Citation # 80 (International Herald Tribune) needs an access date;
  • In the References section, some of the ISBNs have hyphens and some don't, I think these should be consistent;
  • In the References section, the titles of the works should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles, e.g "Intervention : how America became involved in Vietnam" should be "Intervention: How America Became Involved in Vietnam". AustralianRupert (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I've addressed these. Many thanks YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support -- apart from a little typo, I couldn't really see any issues -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comments - another excellent article in my opinion, a couple of minor points about the prose though:
  • The first sentence in the lead seems a little awkward: specifically "Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) of South Vietnam", maybe reword to say he was a "South Vietnamese officer of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN)" or something similar?;
  • Likewise the second last sentence in the lead: "and criticizing US war expansion policy in Vietnam", which could possibly be reworded as: "and criticizing US policy to expand the war in Vietnam"
  • The last word in the last sentence of the 'Diem era' section could be changed to "ensued", instead of "eventuated";
  • The first sentence in the 2nd last para of the '1965 coup against Nguyen Khanh' is a little akward: "which had aims of military expansion, which was opposed by the Buddhist protestors.";
    • Butting in, suggest "which had aims of military expansion and was opposed by the Buddhist protestors." Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Likewise the middle para in the 'Buddhist Uprising of 1966' section: "led to the Buddhist Uprising, led by the "Struggle Movement"." Anotherclown (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Done I think YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Support - Looks good, striking all comments. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 11:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—A1 citation presentation:

  References: Kahin, George McT. (1986). Is his middle name really McT, wow? Logevall, Fredrik (2006). Not going to push you to include the page span of the contained work.

  Short citations: The newspaper articles, did they have page numbers? Same with Time.

  You're going to hate this: Brush, Peter (April 2005). 404s. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I can get logevall. No his real name is not McT. but that is how he credited in the book, eg John R. Smith and all that. Unfortunately the online newspapers and time archive did not have a page number, but with with Time there are usually only 10 articles and it's allowable to identify by chapters, subarticles etc ... Brush has a copy on his own website, so fixable YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries wrt pages. Ah, an Alan Smithee / Incorrect Title page! May I say how continuing glad I am of these RVN articles? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed Brush. The website was reindexed....done Logevall YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:09, 8 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.

---

Passed --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

SMS Kaiser (1911)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Yet another of my German dreadnoughts, Kaiser was the lead ship of the third class built by the Imperial Navy. The ship conducted a long-distance cruise to South America shortly before the outbreak of World War I, and participated in most of the fleet actions of the conflict. I look forward to working with reviewers with the goal of eventually taking this article to FAC. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to review this article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: A few comments to get the review started. I haven't read through the whole article as yet, though.
  • no dab links, no external links broken (no action required);
  • some images have alt text, but others don't. You might consider adding it in (only a suggestion, not a requirement);
  • images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • in the infobox, in the Crew field you have "1043 enlisted", but I think that for consistency of style you should use "1,043 enlisted" as you have used the comma elsewhere for values over a thousand;
  • in the Notes section you have a work by Campbell, but this doesn't appear in the References list;
  • in the Notes section you have a work by Gardiner & Grey, but this doesn't appear in the References list;
  • Citations # 5 and 6 appear to be the same (Staff Vol 1 p. 11) and should be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS;
  • Citations # 57 and 58 (Tarrant, p. 282) appear to be the same and should be consolidated as per above;
  • Citations # 13 and 15 (Tarrant, p. 58) appear to be the same and should be consolidated as per above. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I think I've fixed everything you pointed out here. Let me know if there's anything else that needs fixing. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Support per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. I've done Operation Albion and Battle of Jutland in many other articles, so I didn't look this time; I assume those subsections are fine. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - another excellent article IMO. I made a couple of minor edits but overall it looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 15:41, 7 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.

---

Promoted AustralianRupert (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

HMS Courageous (50)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it's ready. One of the only two ships in history to have served as a battleship or battlecruiser in combat and then to be fully converted into an aircraft carrier. Have no fear, you'll have the opportunity to read about the other in a month or so. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• No dablinks, no broken external links. No alt text, but I don't know what The Official Stance at A-class is. I'll reserve judgement until I've had a more detailed look in a few days, but to start with, can you source andor elaborate on the "Outrageous" nickname? -- saberwyn 21:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I'll take this article next unless you want me to swing by Hood, SV. You want me to give reasons for stuff or just launch a frontal assault? I'd prefer cruisers (no quotes) to "large light cruisers" (with quotes); putting quotes in the first sentence is just a little confusing because they could mean several different things. That's a great phrase, but we can take time to explain what it means in the first section. - Dank (push to talk) 01:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Either one is fine by me; I'm not going to submit either for promotion until the end of the month at the earliest. Damn the torpedoes, full speed! I'll just abuse my newly acquired abilities if I don't like your changes. (sounds of mad cackling receding into the distance)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Sigh. I told him that was a bad idea. - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• The details on the structural damage (see HMS Courageous (50)#First World War) may or may not be more than most of you guys want to know. In general, the issue of what makes an interesting ship article, what you guys want to see more or less of, is a call that shouldn't be made by a copyeditor, so comments are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 16:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I like the damage details because semi-knowledgeable people might be asking "just how was the ship damaged?", but then, I tend to like a copious amount of detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Btw, would someone be willing to run through this article and future articles at A-class (I think we've covered the ones up to now) and link the terms that most readers aren't likely to know? If you spot a term but don't know a good link, either let us know or red-link it. I've already run through this article deleting second links to the same article ... if the article might get to FAC some day, please don't add links that we already have anywhere in the text (but once in the infoboxes and once in the text is fine). - Dank (push to talk) 22:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually ... what we really need, and I'll do it later if no one else gets to it, is run through the 30 FAs and A-class articles before this one and see what we linked to (we've been pretty careful) and make a list so that people will know what to link and where to link to. I don't see any reason this couldn't be automated into a tab that links every term in an article that appears in that list, and also checks to make sure we don't link twice. We don't need this for A-class, but most of these articles can and do go on to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• When the time of day is mentioned in one of these articles, we usually provide, and I recommend, a note telling us whether it's Greenwich time or CET, since British sources will generally give give one and German sources will give the other. - Dank (push to talk) 17:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed we do. Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Although Google searches are kind of an amateurish way to gauge English usage, my Google search is showing Captain Lieutenant (sometimes hyphenated) as much more common than Kapitänleutnant in English sources, so I went with the section link Captain Lieutenant. Feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 21:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Is "Rear Admiral" hyphenated in British English? - Dank (push to talk) 21:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• The first paragraph under Conversion gave the recommissioning date as May 1928 per Burt. I removed this since the date was given as February a few paragraphs later, but feel free to re-insert, explain or swap it for the other date. - Dank (push to talk) 01:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've rewritten the sentence to clarify that the ship was finished in February, but spent the intervening time on trials and training before she joined the Med Fleet; see how it reads.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • All the changes look fine now. - Dank (push to talk) 02:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• I'd like to put a "the" in front of 800 Squadron; is that doable? "She carried 800 Squadron" is going to be misread by some. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Up to you, I guess. To my military-trained ear it's not how the unit would be referred to. It's kinda like ships where you don't normally use articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Any chance of saying "800th Squadron"? - Dank (push to talk) 02:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Why don't we leave it as is since I can point to just as many books that refer to FAA or RAF squadrons without an ordinal as with. If somebody objects I'll change it, but I'd prefer not to.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Support, per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Support for A-class, but with a few comments/questions for improvement:

• Trials damage: exact cause is uncertain. probably needs a citation; I think its a contestible claim.
  • Done.
• In mid-1917 Courageous received a dozen torpedo tubes in pairs:... might need a bit of rewording to clarify, something like received six paired torpedo tube sets:...?
  • Reworded, but I'm not sure that's it's much of an improvement. See what you think.
• The 1st Cruiser Squadron was ordered to attempt to intercept the German ships, but they proved to be faster than hoped and the British ships were unsuccessful. This comes across as a bit wordy...maybe The 1st Cruiser Squadron were ordered to intercept, but were unsuccessful as the German cruisers were faster than expected.?
  • Done.
• Is there any recorded use of the Struter and Camel embarked at the start of 1918?
  • No, probably because there weren't any significant actions during the year.
• "Conversion": For context, can you specify when Furious was converted, and how Courageous' design was improved?
  • Is it now clearer?
• For what purpose did the ship carry 34,500 gallons of petrol?
  • Added
• "Air Group": Do you know which squadrons were embarked during between 1928 and 1933? During what time period were 810, 820, and 821 Squadrons embarked? I assume that 811 Squadron was aboard for the duration after embarking in early 1939, but when was 801 Squadron replaced by 822 Squadron?
  • The air units were flights before '33. I can dig up which ones were assigned to the ship, but I'm fairly certain that they were swapped back and forth quite a bit.
• "Sinking" I don't think the linked article is the best way to describe the WWII RN hunter-killer groups. Instead, you could probably adapt some of the content (particulary the second-half of the first paragraph) from HMS Ark Royal (91)#With the hunter-killer groups.
  • Found a better link.
• Can you specify the number of survivors?
  • Nothing I have lists their numbers.
• Are their any memorials regarding the loss of the carrier?
  • Beats me, I haven't heard of any.

There may be more to come. Hope this all helps. -- saberwyn 21:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• • It's been very helpful. Many thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Round 2:

• Was the ship originally a battlecruiser (class article), a light battlecruiser (infobox), a cruiser (lead), or a large light cruiser (previous lead)? Would it be worth footnoting the first occurence in the lead, with what various sources describe her as?
  • I'm not exactly sure how the RN handled this sort of stuff, but I'm fairly certain that she was initially designated as a large light cruiser because of the limitation on the size of new construction laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1915. Afterwards, I have no idea. Fisher did refer to her as a light battlecruiser on occasion, but he tended to be a bit loose in his language.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• The "30% larger airgroup" claim should be copied into the body and cited.
  • I've rephrased it with the actual numbers and don't really think that it needs citing, considering that the ship's air group size is later cited.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Can you provide a conversion for the 1916 construction cost? -- saberwyn 21:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Probably, but I don't exactly know how. At any rate, I've discovered that I can't source the conversion cost (it was a legacy from an earlier incarnation), and have deleted it. I have a figure for Glorious's conversion, but not for Courageous.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    • In the future, you can use {{Inflation}} for British currency back to the 1200s (and American to 1800 and German to 1882). Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - just a few nitpicks:
  • What's a Mark I* gun turret? Is that the formal designation? The asterisk made me think something was going to be explained.
    • That's the formal designation. Stars, or asterisks were used to denote minor changes. They were cumulative so you could have Mark III****--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Ok. Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You should use the inflation template for the construction cost.
    • I didn't know that there was one, thanks.
      • I went ahead and added them for the construction and conversion costs. Feel free to change them as you see fit. Parsecboy (talk) 11:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You say that after commissioning she was assigned to 3rd LCS, but due to the mauling of 1st CS at Jutland, Courageous was reassigned. The way it's worded makes it sound as though Courageous was in service at the time of Jutland.
    • How does it read now?
      • I tweaked it slightly to make the time-frame more clear, feel free to alter it if need be. Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
        • That's better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "managed to slip through the gaps in the British patrols and destroyed a convoy" doesn't sound right to me. For parallel structure it should be "managed to slip through...and destroy a convoy..."
    • Yes.
  • I'm not particularly familiar with 2nd Helgoland, but I know SMS Kaiser and SMS Kaiserin were present and briefly engaged HMS Renown. Did Courageous come into contact with them at all?
    • No, Renown was detached from the 1st BCS and fought independently of the 1st CS.
      • Alright. Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe just link "hydraulic accelerators" to aircraft catapult?
    • I think Dank may have done this to minimize jargon.
      • Maybe change it to "hydraulic aircraft catapults" then? It'll cut down on jargon and keeps it concise as well. Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Excellent work. Parsecboy (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Moving to support. Parsecboy (talk) 11:05, 5 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 06:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Operation Postmaster

Nominator(s): Jim Sweeney (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because Operation Postmaster was a small almost unknown Special Operations Executive and British Commando operation. It has been through peer and GA reviews and I believe it is ready for an A Class review. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • no dab links, ext links all work, alt text is present (no action required);
  • images appear appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • in the lead "Merchant vessel" I think should not be capitalised;
  • in the lead, "audacious" sounds a little like a point of view, unless that is how it has been described;
  • Citation # 3 "Chapell" is a typo, which should be "Chappell";
  • Citation # 26 is a bare url and should be formatted (either with the {{cite web}} template or some other way of hiding the url chain) and including the title, publisher and accessdate;
  • some of the works in the Bibliography don't have locations, if you can find them they should be added in (if you can't find them, that is okay and I won't hold it against the review). AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply all done thanks for the review. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Excellent article and close to FA class. My suggestions for further improvements are:
  • It would be helpful to explain the Small Scale Raiding Force's role in greater detail
  • I'm still surprised the large quantities of stuff which were listed as being carried by Duchessa d'Aosta - have you checked this against the source to see if it explains whether the cargo manifold was accurate? Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes - It is what was supposed to be in the hold before the raid. There is nothing at all from after she was borrowed to say if it was accurate.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- succinct account of an interesting episode -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:28, 4 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.

---

• Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Boeing B-52 Stratofortress

Nominator(s): Kyteto (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel that this article could benefit from further evaluation, as it is the intention of some editors of the article to proceed eventually to FAC. Additionally I feel that it has reached a level of quality where this level of consideration is now a worthwhile use of time and effort, yet the article is likely to benefit from such an intensive lookover by multiple individuals. Kyteto (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Question: the article states in the section on production and upgrades that the work culminated "in the B-53G and B-52H". That should be B-52G, correct? Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, {{inflation}} should be used in the cost table. There are a number of citation needed tags that I added that need to be addressed. Parsecboy (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 inflated costs in addition to the actual 1955 costs? Replacing the 1955 seems almost like hiding them to me. -fnlayson (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What you could do is add another row in the table for the flyaway costs in 2010 dollars. Parsecboy (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Will probably do it like the table in McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II#Costs then. -fnlayson (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• The current year values have been added for flyaway and other costs in the table. The -53G typo was fixed days ago. -fnlayson (talk) 04:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• There are a large number of links that redirect, and a few that link to disambig pages. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Disambig links addressed. Airplaneman ✈ 20:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comments: Sorry, just a couple of quick ones as I am very short of time at the moment.
  • there are a couple of citation needed tags in the article, are you able to deal with those?
  • in the last sentence of the lead, there are some citations inside the bracket. Per WP:PAIC they should go outside the bracket. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • ext links work (no action required);
  • alt text could be added to the article per WP:ALT (this is only a suggestion and is not a requirement);
  • can you please the ISBN for "Lake, Jon. "Variant Briefing: Boeing B-52 Stratofortress: Part 1"? The Advisor tool is showing that it might not be correct;

I can't get the code to execute properly. I've tried punching it several times, it just won't work as its supposed to despite the fact it is exactly identical to the dozen or so times it did work, such as the book directly above it. I cannot get it to engage properly. Kyteto (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, there was an extra number, so I attempted a fix there. I hope I didn't make it so it's the wrong ISBN now. :) Airplaneman ✈ 17:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes you got the right ISBN. Thanks.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• • there are two disambig links [9]. As they would probably just point back to this article, it is probably best to just remove the links IMO;

Those links are in the notices at the beginning of the article, which states the following:

"B-52" redirects here. For other uses, see B52 (disambiguation). <- that is one of the links

"BUFF" redirects here. For other uses, see Buff. <- and this is the other

I think they should be kept. As noted above, I have fixed the rest of the disambiguation links. Airplaneman ✈ 17:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair call and I agree. Apologies for not investigating further as I should have been able to work this one out for myself. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• • In the Bibliography section, in this title I think there is a typo: "Boeing's Timeless Deterrent, Part 1: B-52 Stratfortress – From Conception to Hanoi". Should it be "Stratofortress", rather than "Stratfortess"? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comments This is a very solid article, but I think that it may need a bit more work to reach A class. My comments are:
  • To whom did William McPherson Allen appeal to keep the B-52 design contract active, and why was this successful?
  • "The Model 464-35 design was a proposal whose powerplant configuration that, unknown to either party, paralleled what the Tupolev design bureau was doing in the Soviet Union three years later in mid-July 1951" - this is confusingly written as the tense is unclear. It might be easier to just say that Tupolev did similar work three years later.
  • The 'Production and improvements' section is much too short - is there really nothing to say about the process of building these aircraft over several decades? (eg, where were they built, what as the annual output of aircraft, were there any very notable successes or failures during the production run(s), etc).
  • What motivated the 'Big Four' program? - it would appear that the answer is concerns about the B-52s ability to penetrate and survive in SAM-protected airspace but this isn't clearly stated
  • The 'Fuel research platform' section seems much too long and detailed given that this level of coverage isn't provided to the other experimental uses of B-52s.
  • The coverage of the B-52s Cold War nuclear deterrent mission seems rather brief given that this is was the main use for the aircraft. It would be interesting if this section discussed how the aircraft would have been used in the event of war in greater detail (and how this changed over time).
  • "Over the next months, B-52Gs operating from bases at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; RAF Fairford in the United Kingdom; Moron AB, Spain; and the island of Diego Garcia flew low-altitude bombing missions" seems a bit odd given that the Gulf War only lasted for a few weeks and the next sentence states that the aircraft were shifted to high-altitude bombing after three nights Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to make it clear that I'm standing by for further instructions, I believe I have effectively addressed the concerns and corrections desired so far. Kyteto (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support comments now addressed Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support—a solid, well-written article. Airplaneman ✈ 22:08, 2 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 05:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Arnold's expedition to Quebec

Nominator(s): Magic♪piano

I thought this expedition was a fascinating piece of logistics that succeeded in spite of some fairly significant problems (not the least of which was a total underestimation of the distances and terrain involved). It's remarkably well documented; several men kept journals that survived the ordeal. I hope it meets with your approval. Magic♪piano 13:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: generally very good in my opinion. I have the following comments:
  • there are no dab links, ext links all work (no action required);
  • the images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • most of the images have alt text, although two don't: would it be possible to add this in for consistency (note that alt text is not an A class requirement, so this is just a suggestion);
  • some of the ISBNS have hyphens but others don't (e.g. Martin has it, but Smith doesn't). These should be consistent;
  • I think the first sentence of the lead should be tweaked as it seems a bit awkward, particularly this clause: "an expedition through the wilderness of what is now Maine that was part of a two-pronged invasion..."
  • in the Recruitment and preparations section, I suggest wikilinking "battalion" upon first mention in case readers don't know what sized unit that i and want more information;
  • in the Recruitment and preparations section, I think you have overlinked the term "Canadiens". It is also linked in the Background section and lead (which is fine), but it shouldn't be linked a third time in my opinion;
  • in the Scouting section I think "ten miles (16 km)" should be "10 miles (16 km)" per the MOS preference to use numerals for numbers greater than nine. As you have this ("45 miles (72 km)") in the same section, it is a consistency issue;
  • in The Great Carrying Place section, same as above for this: "twelve miles (19 km)";
  • in the Disaster on the Dead River section you have this clause: "...Colonel Greene or Colonel Enos, the leaders of the two rear divisions..." Can you please check the use of the word "division" here? I though that Greene and Enos were battalion commanders (per the sentence in the Recruitment section);
  • in the Disaster on the Dead River section, this sentence group seems a little repetitive: "possible to civilization on the Chaudière, and work to bring supplies back. The sick and infirm were to retreat to civilization in Maine" (the issue being repetition of the word "civilization". Could you not just say "retreat to Maine"?);
  • in the Arrival at Quebec section, the first sentence appears to have a tense issue: "Arnold began made contact with the local population...";
  • in the Legacy section, can you please clarify why you have include the "[sic]" where you have. My understanding is that it is used in quotations where "writing quoted material to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation or meaning in the quote has been reproduced verbatim from the original and is not a transcription error (i.e. it appeared thus in the original)" (quoted from the article on "sic"). But the sentence in which you use it is not in quotations, so wouldn't it just be best to correct the unusual spelling, or to include the quotation marks. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed feedback; I've made changes to address most of them. A few specific responses:

• I don't think the two maps missing alt text need it -- their content is IMHO described adequately either in the caption or in the article text (in a way that is consistent with my understanding of WP:ALT). If you disagree, feel free to suggest (or add) alt text that would illuminate the situation...
• re "retreating to civilization in Maine": the expedition is still technically in Maine, so "retreat to Maine" doesn't really work. I've rephrased this; feel free to comment again.
• the "[sic]" is there to forestall "helpful" typo-editors that like to fix things that aren't broken, like "Great Carrying Place Town Township".

-- Magic♪piano 18:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, that should all be fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I could find no major problems. Excellent work! Parsecboy (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - very nicely done overall, few minor points:
  • Is the word "bateau" a typo, or is it the singular form of "bateaux" (first para of 'Early signs of trouble' section)?; and
  • This article has a lot of maps, I wonder if it would be possible to cull a few (and to reduce the large amount of whitespace)? Anotherclown (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support; "bateau" is indeed the singular. The last map (File:American attack on Quebec.svg) is only there to show Montgomery's route. I think the visuals of all of the other maps are somewhat necessary; I'm open to suggestions on how to lay out the two compared maps. (I agree the current method includes some white space, but I'm at a loss for a better method of presenting those maps such that the differences between them are readily apparent. I think that they need to be reasonably large, which unfortunately precludes having text to either side.) Magic♪piano 16:42, 1 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 04:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Armed Forces of Liberia

Nominator(s): Buckshot06(prof)

Prior review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Armed Forces of Liberia/archive2
This is a third nomination, after two last year. I believe I have addressed virtually all the issues raised in the last two reviews, and want to see if it's ready to be promoted. Thanks to all who review the page. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • there is one dab link reported, but per the previous review I don't believe this can be fixed (no action required);
  • images have alt text (no action required);
  • images seem to be correctly licenced (no action required);
  • a few of the external links show up as dead with the Featured article tools, can you please investigate? [10];Y
  • in the History section you have this in single quotation marks: 'tend[ing] to be brief and uninspired [with little] accomplished other than some desultory close-order drill' - however, per Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE#Quotation marks, I believe that it should be it double or "..." quotes;Y
  • in the History section, this needs a citation: "U.S. forces also established a officer candidate school during the later part of the war, using instructors selected from the American troops in the country. The school conducted two courses and graduated nearly 300 new officers. Just under twenty years later in 1964, the group still made up over 50% of the officer corps of the AFL";Y
  • in the Doe regime and civil war section, this needs a citation: "By May 1990 the AFL had been forced back to Gbarnga, still under the control of Bowen's troops, but they lost the town to a NPFL assault on 28 May 1990";Y
  • in the Rebuilding the AFL section, the final paragraph needs a citation: "In October 2009 a State Partnership Program relationship was begun between the AFL and the U.S. state of Michigan's Michigan National Guard";Y
  • in the Organization section, this needs a citation: "Samukai is attempting to alleviate the problem by relocating some personnel to Camp Tubman in Gbarnga, though this will initially only involve some of the engineers";Y
  • in the Organization section, this needs a citation: "Construction of the Coast Guard boat ramp was scheduled for completion by early June 2010";Y
  • Citation # 80 the url chain is showing, but it should probably be embedded in the title of the work as you've done with the others;Y
  • in the Bibliography section the titles of books (e.g. the Ellis work) should be in italics;Y
  • in the Bibliography section you sometimes have the authors' with first names first (Festus B Aboagye) but then sometimes surnames first (e.g. Ellis, Stephen), I think they should all be the same, with the normal standard to be Surname, First name I believe;Y
  • same as above for the Further reading section.Y AustralianRupert (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • some of the citation formats are a little different, for example # 38 "Adebajo, 2002, p.58. See also Hubard, 118-125" (in this case I think you need to add "pp." to Hubard, and the page range should have an endash);
  • as per above, with Citation # 9 "T.D. Roberts et al," you have "p. 389–90", but I think it should be "pp.389–390" for consistency - the issue being the "pp." but also displaying the full page number;Y
  • in the citations there are still a few that have the bare url links, e.g # 46 ("Bowen joined the AFL"), # 47 ("Kromah was a former police officer"), # 58 (where it talks about the 2007-2009 funding) - this "2007-2009" also needs an endash;
  • some of the web citations don't have accessdates, for instance Citation # 12 "NewLiberian.com" and # 34 "2006/2007 Budget";
  • Citation # 45 "Adebayo, 2002, p.233-235" should have an endash for the page range, but should also be "pp. 233–235" as it is a multiple page range. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • In the Rebuilding the AFL section, this sentence needs a citation: "A number of the current senior AFL officers have been drawn from the ranks of the previous 1993–94 Interim Government of National Unity paramilitary police force, the 'Black Berets.'"
  • in the last sentence of the History section you have used single quotation marks when you should have double quotations (as per the comment above that you've fixed): "Sawyer also comments that 'recruitment of such individuals for the military was part of Tolbert's efforts to replace aging, illiterate soldiers with younger, literate men who were capable of absorbing technical and professional training.'"Y AustralianRupert (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Doe regime and civil war section, check your usage of "lead" and "led" in the first paragraph;Y
  • in the Doe regime and civil war section, check that your capitalisation of military ranks is consistent with Wikipedia:MILMOS#Capitalization. For instance "...Doe, as a Master Sergeant..." should be "...Doe, as a master sergeant..." as it is not being used as a title/proper noun in this case. Also later "Captain to Lieutenant General" which should be "capitain to lieutenant general";Y
  • check for overlink, for instance Samuel Doe is linked in both the History section and the Doe regime and civil war section;Y
  • some of the citations still have inconsistent formats, for instance Citations # 7 is "Roberts, 1964, pp.392–3", but Citation # 8 is "T.D. Roberts et al, US Army Area Handbook 1964, pp.389–90". The difference here is that one is using the short citation style and the other is using a longer variation. Compare this then with Citation # 29, which has "Ellis, Stephen (2001). The Mask of Anarchy. London: Hurst and Company. p. 56. ISBN 1-85065-417-4";
  • in the Taylor Regime section you have "demobilization", however, before that in the History section you have "mobilisation", and then later in the Organization section you have "demobilisation" (the issue here being a mixture of US and British/Commonwealth spelling);Y
  • in the History section, there appears to be a tense issue in this clause: "By 1978 the program has been..." (the word "has" is the issue here, as it is in the past it should probably be "had");Y
  • in this sentence there is a capitalisation issue: "By 1978, the LNG Brigade had been established and the Brigade was described as comprising a Headquarters and Headquarters Company at..." (the issue is with "Headquarters" and "Headquarters Company" as these should be lower case as they are being used as improper nouns in this case. For instance in the paragraph above you have "headquarters company");Y Current usage is correct - all the units are given proper titles.
  • in the History sentence, this clause: 'other non-military duties.' Is this a direct quote? If so it should be in double quotation marks, also does the full stop appear in the quote in the source? If not, the final quotation mark should come before the full stop rather than after it per WP:LQ;
  • in the final paragraph of the History section, Sawyer should be linked on first mention (currently he is linked on second mention);Y
  • Toulbert should be linked on first mention as per above (currently lined in the Doe regime and civil war, but it appears before this in previous sections);Y
  • in the Doe regime section, please check the capitalisation of this "The Liberian Navy Act Of 1986" (the issue being "Of", should this be capitalised? Elsewhere you have this: "New National Defense Act of 2008" where the of is not capitalised); Y
  • I think the "Taylor Regime" section header should not be capitalised as it is, I think it should be "Taylor regime" (see how it is "Doe regime..." in the previous header?);Y
  • in the Taylor due to the placing of the commas this looks a little unclear: "(Army, 5,160, Navy, 600, and Air Force, 240)". I suggest changing to this "(5,160 Army, 600 Navy and 240 Air Force)";Y
  • Second Liberian Civil War is overlinked (in the Rebuilding the AFL section, but also in the Taylor Regime section above it). It should only be mentioned in the body on first mention (an in lead and infobox if required), but only once in the body;Y
  • in the Organization section, this clause needs a tweak: "...preparation for a assessment exercise" (I think it should be "...preparation for an assessment exercise");Y
  • in the Organization section, "Mi-24" should be linked as it is not linked earlier;Y
  • Citation # 10 "T.D. Roberts et al, US Army Area Handbook 1964, p.389–90" should use "pp." as it is a page range.Y AustralianRupert (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support I am quite happy with the progress of this article since the start of the ACR. There are a couple of minor outstanding points which I would like to see addressed before taking to FAC (if that is the intention), but I am happy to support for A class. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support I supported the previous nominations, and think that this article meets the A class criteria. The sentence "Samukai is attempting to alleviate the problem by relocating some personnel to Camp Tubman in Gbarnga, though this will initially only involve some of the engineers." needs a citation though. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comments
  • What happened to the navy? was it disbanded and incorporated into the coast guard? what happened to the patrol craft it operated?XavierGreen (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Xavier you will see in the 'Rebuilding the AFL' section that there is a note that all the AFL personnel were paid off and retired in 2005 with money from international donors. I have now added a specific note saying that that included the former Navy, renamed from the Coast Guard around 1985 (the exact date is in the article.) As for the patrol craft, I do not known what happened to them; the MOD building was looted during the conflict and most records were destroyed. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Those dead external links alone are cause enough for me to oppose the article, and the green "iffy" links to the websites don't much help the article's promotion chances. I'll look at the actual article once the external link issues are worked out. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment The International Crisis Group ones are dead as they've moved behind a registration wall in the last few months; ICG reports are plainly very good sources. Nick-D (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not contesting that, I just want the tool to display no red links if possible. I consider this a factor in A1 & A2 criteria, so I get anal concerning sources that are red linked or otherwise highlighted by the tools. To be fair, I do reevaluate this position based on what the nominator has to say about the problem, so its not as those this is set in stone. Whatever changes I make will have to wait until tomorrow though, its almost 3:30AM here and I am having trouble keeping my eyes open. If there is one thing I know to be true its that editing while you are tired is a bad idea :) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I've been working through the issues that AustralianRupert has raised, and have not addressed all of them. The external link fixes were among the last on my list to do - I'll fix them within a couple of days. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've now addressed the FA tool external links and added a citation to the engineers statement. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Moved to Neutral TomStar81 (Talk) 19:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support I'm happy now, the article was a n interesting read and everything does seem to be in place. Good job. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:55, 28 August 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 06:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Action of 1 January 1800

Nominator(s): XavierGreen (talk)

A battle that occured during the Quasi-War and the War of Knives, two conflicts whose coverage is a bit lacking in content here on wikipedia. I hope to bring this to FAC if i can, and as such would enjoy having fellow editors review it in order to bring it up to A-class standards if it does not already meet those standards. Thanks! XavierGreen (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• SupportComments There's one DAB link (merchantmen); external links look good. More comments later, but I can't help wondering if there are more current sources that describe the action. Magic♪piano 23:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • • Fixed the dab link, most modern sources give only a short summery of the events that occured. Allen is the standard text of the quasi war and is commonly cited in most modern works.XavierGreen (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, fair enough. Magic♪piano 14:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • If the image was clipped from an online source, the file page should include the link. If not, more detailed publication information should be provided. Also, the artist field is blank; if it is unknown, say so.
    • Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • More context (probably 1-2 sentences is sufficient) is needed on the state of the Haitian Revolution (which ought to be linked, since the War of Knives is a part of it) leading to the Rigaud-l'Ouverture split.
    • I added some more background info.XavierGreen (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • spelling consistency is needed for Rigaud and picaroon
    • I think i got them all now.XavierGreen (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It's probably worth mentioning in the aftermath that Experiment later captured a ship carrying Rigaud.
    • Done.XavierGreen (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It's probably also worth mentioning that Maley learned after the fact how many men and barges Rigaud had available (I think I saw that in Allen).
    • Tis done.XavierGreen (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

-- Magic♪piano 01:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments addressed; supporting. Magic♪piano 00:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • in the infobox the strength range of "400-500" should have an endash per WP:DASH;
    • I think i fixed this.XavierGreen (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • in the article you have a mixture of date formats, for example: "1 January 1800", then "January 1, 1800", but then also "October 1, 1800" and then "16 July 1800". These should all be the one format for consistency. As the title uses "1 January 1800", I'd suggest using that format;
    • I fixed this.XavierGreen (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References section, it is slightly out of alphabetical order, e.g. you have Soley before Maclay, but M comes before S in the alphabet;
    • Tis fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References section, could OCLC numbers be added to the works that are too old for ISBNs (e.g Abbot, Cooper, Soley, Maclay). You can obtain these by going to here and searching by title: [11];
    • FixedXavierGreen (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References section, the redlinks for the authors seem a bit jarring. Are you sure that they are all notable enough to deserve a possible article? If they are, it is fine to keep them, but if not I suggest perhaps removing them (this is just a suggestion and won't stand in the way of support). AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I removed Williams since he hasnt really published very much yet, Allen and Maclay are widely sources in wikipedia for multiple works though and redlins already exist for them on other pages so i have left them.XavierGreen (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my comments have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments - some c/e questions to run by you for some feedback :)

• "The battle was fought between an American convoy consisting of the United States naval schooner USS Experiment and four merchant vessels and a squadron of armed barges manned by Haitian picaroons." (section: Intro)
  • The way this is worded (especially with all the 'and's) makes it confusing what is on whose side. For example, the first time I read this, somehow I assumed that the merchant vessels were on the Haitian side. Of course, it was made clear to me how it actually was as I read on, but this might be a problem. Ideas on how to fix this? Maybe somehow we could put the word "Haitian" before "squadron"... ?
    • I reagranged the sentence (when I originally wrote it, it seemed aquard even to me).
      • Great work, it is perfectly clear now. Icy // ♫ 00:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• "A French aligned Haitian general, André Rigaud, had instructed his forces to attack all foreign shipping within their grasp. Thus the picaroons attacked the American convoy, capturing two of the schooners before retiring." (section: Intro)
  • No obvious problem here, but what do you think about combining sentences? Perhaps along the lines of "Instructed by French-aligned Haitian general André Rigaud to attack all foreign shipping within their grasp, the picaroons attacked the American convoy...." though that maybe a bit long and run-on-y. Ideas...?
    • Hmm combining them seems to make it a bit to big. I wouldn't mind, but the folks at FAR might once it gets to that stage. I'm not to sure what to do with this.XavierGreen (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I guess I'll muse over it and get back to you if I have any ideas. Anyone else have ideas...? Icy // ♫ 00:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Seeing the stranded convoy, the Haitian commander André Rigaud sent ten armed barges out to attack and seize the convoy." (section: Background)
  • No obvious problem here either, but this sentence strikes me as a bit redundant. First of all, you have established who Rigaud is, his status, and who he is working for in the introduction and in the first paragraph of "Background" so is there a specific reason to repeat his full name and the fact he is a Haitian commander? You also repeat "convoy" twice. Now, this is perfectly fine I guess, but you could replace the second "convoy" with, perhaps, "the ships" or something? (forgive me for being unclear...)
    • I fixed this.XavierGreen (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Thus, when the Haitians attacked the American warship again it was well prepared to repulse any attempt at boarding her." (section: Battle)
  • Now there is some disagreement here. First you refer to Experiment as "it", then later in the same sentence "her". If you're going to use "her" then wouldn't it be better to replace "it" with "she", for the sake of consistency? If I'm being woefully ignorant of some sort of agreed-upon convention feel free to enlighten me.
    • Your correct, I think i fixed all these.XavierGreen (talk)
• "Leaving on the schooner Diane, he was captured when the Experiment intercepted her on 1 October 1800." (section: Aftermath)
  • OK, I'm just being unfairly picky and here. The way this sounds is awkward. So Rigaud was just ... "leaving"? Any reasons why he would be leaving? Given, this is not an integral part of of the subject matter of the article, but I feel like it wouldn't hurt to be a little more specific with your word choice also. Was he escaping, whatever? On his individual page it says that he was headed for France after a defeat by rival Toussaint Louverture. Now I'm not sure how precise that is, but it's a pretty general idea of what he was doing that we can start with.
    • One of his last strongholds was at Jacmel, once this fell to an assault by Toussaints forces (who had some assistance from an American bombardment) he was quickly defeated and had no choice but to flee haiti to save his skin. Wikipedia's article about him is rather poor, he had fled to Guadalope after leaving Haiti. After spending some time in Guadalope he then left for France on the Diane, was captured by the Experiment and taken to the American base at Saint Kitts. He later helped fight in Napoleons invasion of Haiti. I added some more information about him in the Aftermath section.XavierGreen (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I think that is all I have as for questions go. I think it wouldn't hurt to find another c/e'r, who perhaps has a little bit more of an idea what he/she is doing (i.e. more familiar with subject area?) that I am. Either way, an interesting little read you have here. Good luck ~ Icy // ♫ 21:55, 9 August 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 03:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

December 1964 South Vietnamese coup

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll)

Another coup in South Vietnam in the 1960s. The ruling military junta decided to compulsorily retire some older generals to politically sideline them, and the High National Council, a civilian advisory pseudo-legislature they created to look constitutional refused. Possibly because the HNC were mostly old men mocked as the High National Museum. In any case the junta dissolved the HNC and arrested the civilians, provoking US Ambassador Maxwell Taylor to angrily shout at the generals, leading to a public war of words. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This event/article followed and is related to

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/September 1964 South Vietnamese coup attempt

• Comments: Generally looks quite good to me, but this is just a short review at the moment. (I will come back later when I get a chance for a more thorough review):
  • there is one dab link per the Featured article tools that should be corrected: [12]
    • Fait Accompli is now showing as a dab link, but I don't think this can be fixed;
  • ext links are fine and alt text is present;
  • at five paragraphs, I think the lead might be too long. I think four is the maximum per Wikipedia:LEAD#Length. Could you possibly consolidate a couple of them?;
  • the titles in the References section should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles (Kahin and Karnow being the ones that need tweaking);
  • in the Notes section is there a reason that you have used long citation style for Steinberg, but short for all the other refs?
  • the ribbon template at the bottom of the article might look better if it were collapsed. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I've done all these and think I obviated the last by fixing some code that was making the template bigger than normal with two mostly-empty and redundant lines. Also, as there were a lot of coups and infighting, I think keeping it open so everyone can click on the related topics, which are all very intertwined because of the infighting YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Background section, the first sentence might sound a little more direct if it began with the date, for instance: "In October 1964, Nguyen Khanh and the senior officers...";
  • in the Compulsory retirement section, in this clause you have " only 9 of the 17 members..." however, per Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE#Numbers as figures or words the 9 should probably be "nine";

It says in there that numbers and words should not be mixed in a a sentence, which overrides the < 10 rule YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• • in the Dissolution of the HNC section, the first sentence begins: "Before dawn, there were troop movements..." Before dawn on which day? I think it should be clarified;
  • in the Brinks Hotel bombing section, in this clause the word "officers" is said twice close together, the second is probably not needed: "...US officers were billeted, killing two American officers and injuring...";
  • in the Fall out section, the final sentence of the first paragraph probably should have a citation;
  • in the Fall out section, this date I think should have a year after it: "...made was on January 6, when";
  • in the References section, some of the ISBNs have hyphens and others don't. For consistency I think they should either all have hyphens, or all not have hyphens. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've done the rest I believe YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: I'm concerned that the lead might still be a bit long. I understand that there was a series of coups during this period, but could that be better handled by linking out to those articles instead of having a big lead?

"On September 26, 1964, Nguyen Khanh and the senior officers in his military junta decided to create a semblance of civilian rule by creating the High National Council (HNC), an appointed advisory body akin to a mock legislature." If it's a semblance of civilian rule, do you need to use the term mock here? And when you cite the source for American influence in the HNC creation, did they exert this influence through Taylor or someone else?

"which Khanh and his men assured would be the case" This might read better as Khan and his men 'said' or 'stated' instead of assured.

"Khanh's quartet of delegates responded to Taylor by responding in a circumlocutory way." This might read better as 'responded to Taylor by acting' instead of using respond twice.

I saw similar things later in the article, but again it's mainly stylistic stuff. The piece appears to be well-researched, although a couple more sources certainly couldn't hurt.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Done all this, I think YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Highlighted concerns were addressed.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• SupportComments

I am not terribly familiar with the details of the Vietnam War; I was quite young at the time.

• The article title and infobox header contradict each other; is it a coup (implying it succeeded) or a coup attempt (implying it failed)?
• High National Council is incorrectly linked (rather than red-link High National Council (South Vietnam), which is linked elsewhere)
• First paragraph of lead has three sentences in it; the second two are both somewhat long, with enough clauses that they should probably be split up.
• While this article is primarily about internal South Vietnamese politics, I'd expect the background to include a sentence or two on the general state of the war.
• Taylor image caption: he was either angry with the coup leaders, or upset about the coup; (insert image of Taylor saying "bad coup; naughty coup!")
• Westmoreland is never linked or identified beyond his last name and the rank of General. I understand he was somewhat important in this war...
• Link to Cable 243 in "Taylor meets Khanh" is a bit of an Easter Egg.
• Did this event have anything to do with Taylor's departure as ambassador? The fact that he did leave six months later (and possibly the reason for same) is probably worth mentioning.
• In the same vein, I didn't see anything on the eventual fate of Khanh, his junta, the Young Turks, or the effect of this event on the conduct of the war in general.

-- Magic♪piano 14:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Did all of this, I think YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The context before and after the event definitely help. Issues addressed, support. Magic♪piano 12:33, 24 August 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 02:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

1965 South Vietnamese coup

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll)

Another coup, and after a year of turmoil General Nguyen Khanh was finally toppled in a US-backed effort. It was basically two coups in one. One group started it, and another group intervened to stop them, and complete their own coup on top of it. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - very well-written and well-researched article.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comments: I can't find much wrong with this. I believe this is up to standard and have only a few comments. (I will read over the article again tomorrow when I'm not falling asleep and see if I can find anything else to comment on):
  • there are no dab links, ext links all work, alt text is present (no action required);
  • I made a couple of minor tweaks, please check that you agree with them;
  • can you please check the ISBN for the Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War work? The Advisor script reports that the ISBN listed may not be correct;
  • "3 km west of central Saigon" in the Failure to capture Bien Hoa Air Base section could have a convert template added to it to show the equivalent distance in miles for those that don't understand kilometres. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's fine. I've checked the ISBN. I made a mistake and wrote the number down wrong when I first used in 2007 and transmitted it to too many pages. Got rid of it last year on an FAC but some were evidently still there, and reproduced. Well it was good because I hadn't noticed that some books eg Hammer and Langguth had a longer title that was not present on the spine of the article and I only used the shorthand when I filled it in YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comments: There are some typos and tone issues in the article.

"He phoned Saigon asking for re-supply, but was unsurprising denied his wish" - shouldn't that be 'unsurprisingly' or the word deleted?

"Khanh finally agreed to leave if he was given a dignified send-off, so the other generals arranged a ceremony at Tan Son Nhut on February 24, where military bands serenaded him" - this seems a little off to me. Maybe it could be broken down into two sentences.

"and was sent on a meaningless world tour," - again, something of an editorial voice here. If you're going to call it 'meaningless,' it might be better to find a quotable source that uses the word.

I saw some other grammar-type issues earlier in the article, but those were the most notable to me.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsurprising culled, probably doesn't need to be said. Tweaked the second and attached meaningless to ref, as it was indeed there YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• SupportLooking much better now.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support
• The citation checker reveals a number of errors (all cases of multiple references containing the same content). These will need to be fixed (to use it click edit at the top of the article, click 'Error check', select all check boxes and hit the 'Check' button);

Does one need some software installed as I can't see any gadget. I looked manually but can't see any identical citations separately; I presume the tool means that I made a redundant multiple expansion of the same ref name tag, in which case it wouldn't give any visible redundancy, and it seems rather horrible to search for it manually YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry mate I think my instructions were a bit off. What you need to do is click on the 'Edit' tab at the top of the article, then click on 'Cite', then on 'Error check'. Hopefully that should work. I think you are right though it is most likely just using the same named ref on a few occasions, not a failure to consolidate the refs themselves, so its pretty minor anyway. Anotherclown (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

On the LHS the toolbox has six buttons, the last two are cite and permanent link. If I open up the page for editing, these two disappear :( YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in here. To get this tool to work you need to add it to your gadgets in your preferences. Click "My Preferences" in the top right of your screen. Click the "Gadgets" tag. Scroll down to the Editing gadgets section. Tick the "reftools" option. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Installed and fixed. Thanks for that I didn't know about all these good tools. No wonder I'm not efficient YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha. :-) No worries. Just to let you know Anotherclown is on a course, so might not respond quickly. It all depends on the dargens. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• One of the images may need a fair use rationale for use in this article (or be removed from the article) as it appears to still be under copyright: File:Bien Hoa Air Base-aerial.jpg;  Done

Removed it. I should have checked and saw it was a current photo; I just assumed it was a USAF one from the 1960s YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Anotherclown (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have made a few tweaks, please check that they didn't alter your intended meaning; Done

Fine YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• The second sentence in the 'Background' section is problematic and doesn't make sense to me..."In August, the Vietnam War expanded with the Tonkin Gulf incident, a disputed encounter between North Vietnamese and American naval vessels—Washington accused the communists of attacking their boats in international waters." It should be reworded a little, and probably the first and second paragraphs merged IMO;

Done I think YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think this is problematic grammatically. I have tweaked, please check you're happy with it.Anotherclown (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Good YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• The use of the phrase "crying out" in the last para of the 'Coup begining' section seems like it should be reworded to me... perhaps "broadcasting the message" or something similar? Done

Changed YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Anotherclown (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• In the first para of the 'Announcement of the coup' section you write: Kiem said that "Lodge was wrong in encouraging the coup against Diem rather than correcting mistakes". No other mention of Henry Cabot Lodge occurs in the article... perhaps his position and role in the 1963 coup could be explained? Also he was later reappointed as ambassador and took over from Taylor (I persume in the wake of the 1965 coup but I'm no expert on this topic), should this be mentioned? Done

I've explained Lodge in a sentence or two. I'm not putting in the stuff about Taylor as that was more because Lodge was seen as a better and smoother diplomat, rather than the fact he was implicated in any coup, as the US was always implicated once something happened. Lodge stopped in 1964 to campaign in the US election YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers , happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• The phrase "At the same time" is used twice in the 'Failure to capture Bien Hoa Air Base and stalemate' section, perhaps reword one? Done

Done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Despite these points (many are just suggestions for improvement), overall I think this is an excellent article and intend to support when they are dealt with. Anotherclown (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Adding my support as all my concerns have been taken care of. Apologies for taking so long to finalise this review (RL....). Well done YellowMonkey. Anotherclown (talk) 22:32, 20 August 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 03:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Borodino class battlecruiser

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think that it's ready. Be advised that most every image of these ships in Commons is unsourced and unusable at this level. Also, please be specific in your comments on prose issues. Generic comments are not very helpful and do not allow me to identify the problem(s) so I can fix them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • the prose seems fine to me, although I made a couple of tweaks. Please check that you agree with the changes I made;
  • no dab links (no action required);
  • I didn't find any glaring MOS issues;
  • one external link shows as dead using the Featured article tools, can you please investigate? [13];
    • Fixed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • alt text could be added to the image, but this is just a suggestion;
  • Note # 2 might need a citation;
    • Added--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • the navigation template at the bottom of the article might look better if it were collapsed (given that it is reasonably big). AustralianRupert (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support all my comments have been addressed and the article has been thoroughly copyedited. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead section will need 2 paragraphs for FAC; I'd prefer to see two for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 03:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Not exactly sure where to break it in two.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
    • That's fine, and I added a bit to the second paragraph. - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Who gave approval on 5 May 1911? - Dank (push to talk)
  • Answered.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• "armament was to be nine 14-inch (356 mm) guns" will be a little smoother if the armament was increased relative to the previous design; was it? - Dank (push to talk)
  • 12 inches was the largest caliber yet used by the Russians.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay, see how it reads now. - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Does "standard load" make sense pre-WNC? - Dank (push to talk)
  • Dammit, I thought I'd caught most of these. Rephrased.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• When it's clear a ship was only designed and never built, it seems fine to me to say that the ship "had" this and that; it's obvious the design is meant. But for these, "a number of components had been ordered from foreign manufacturers", so they were in the process of putting stuff together. So in some of the sections, it's not clear to me whether you're describing the design or something that was actually built. - Dank (push to talk) 04:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • That's a problem because the ships were actually constructed; they were just never finished.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• For example, when you say "They could be loaded at any angle between −5° and +15°; their rate of fire was supposed to [be] three rounds per minute ...", the lack of a "supposed to" in the first clause suggests that the guns were really in place and could be loaded ... was that the case? - Dank (push to talk) 04:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Kind of. The guns could only be loaded at those angles, but the reloading time was speculative because no turret was ever finished.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay, see how it reads now. - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Not important to me, but sometimes you write "degrees" and sometimes you use the symbol, you might want to do a quick search for "degrees". - Dank (push to talk)
• Per WP:ORDINAL (and also per AP, more or less), "Numbers that begin a sentence are spelled out, since using figures risks the period being read as a decimal point or abbreviation mark; it is often better to recast the sentence than to simply change format ...". I've fixed it. - Dank (push to talk)
• There's nothing on Wikipedia (3 hits, none helpful), and not a lot of ghits, that help me with "subcaliber training". I found this on a forum: "Subcaliber firing was used by the U.S. Army to develop a tank gunner's accuracy, speed, and confidence without the costs and disturbance of firing the main armament. In general, the coaxial machine gun was used for the subcaliber training. However for fire adjustment training, a standard submachine gun was mounted outside the tank. Until a standard mount could be developed, the Tank Gunnery manual recommended the following mount for the 75-mm gun on the M4. For firing, the submachine gun was connected to the firing solenoid from the coaxial machine gun. Source: Tank Gunnery, War Department Field Manual FM 17-12, July 10, 1944". Thoughts? Do we want to add this term to the glossary? - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Added an article on sub-caliber training.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Helpful article, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Tapering" and "decreasing" are better than "reducing" (used intransitively), although "reducing" isn't wrong. Use it sparingly. - Dank (push to talk)
• This is the second article I've seen that needed either a glossary entry or a redlink for armored citadel. (Sovetsky_Soyuz_class_battleship was the first). Anyone want to take a stab at it? - Dank (push to talk)
  • Defined, with a redirect for the British spelling.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Anyone know if Template:lang-ru is meant to be followed only by Cyrillic? (See the Notes section.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• I'll speed it up, I want to finish this before lunch. Sentences that need ... something:

  "Delays affected construction of the ships enough that, when reviewed on 4 June 1914, launching of the first pair of ships was delayed until October 1914." needs something.

  • How does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

    Yeah, that's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 17:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  "as shown below" ... opinions vary on this; some discussion can be found in WP:SELFREF and its talk page. Some people feel strongly that you never know where Wikipedia text will wind up and you shouldn't say something in the text that makes an assumption; sometimes the text will be "shown below", and sometimes it won't, for instance if someone is reading the article on a small screen and they're choosing not to see images and tables. I don't have a problem with it.

  I prefer for the first link to "scrap" or "scrapping" to go to ship breaking; then if there's a second link, scrap isn't bad. - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Support per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment - Why are two of the book sources entirely in the footnotes? Shouldn't Breyer and Friedman be formatted the same as the rest? Parsecboy (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Just to note, once this issue is addressed I'll support the article for A-class. Also a bit of disclosure, whether it's relevant or not, I reviewed and passed this article for GA status. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - made a couple tweaks. The images look good, but I'd recommend fleshing out the "purpose of use" in both. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:15, 17 August 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 03:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

USS Massachusetts (BB-2)

Nominator(s): Yoenit (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review as I am attempting to make it a Featured article and a thorough A-class review is an important part of the process. Massachusetts wass the US second real battleship and received neither the attention of USS Indiana (BB-1), nor the glory of USS Oregon (BB-3), making her probably most notable for her bad luck. Many thanks to everybody who reviews (or otherwise improves) the article. (Note: Article is still at GAN, but only issue remaining is a copyright tag on an image, which will be resolved soon or the picture replaced)Yoenit (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• It's true that Friedman (pp. 24-25) specifically mentions approval by the House of Representatives in April 1890, but "then" (presumably also in 1890) the Senate also signed off on the 3 battleships (and 2 smaller ships, btw). Normally when you see "the House approved X in year Y" in a U.S. newspaper, it means that the Senate did not approve it, which was not the case here, so I reworded. - Dank (push to talk) 19:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • seen, learned, stored. Yoenit (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• In the Design and construction section, I get that you want the focus to be on just this ship, but in the first paragraph, first you're talking about the design of all 3 ships, then about the design of just this ship for 2 sentences, then all 3 again in the first sentence of the next paragraph. My recollection from the previous article (I don't have the pre-1905 Conway) is that those two sentences equally apply to all 3 ships, so I changed "she" to "they", etc. But if that's not what the sources say, please correct me. - Dank (push to talk) 19:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, changed it around for Indiana after I got comments about it being to much about the ship class, looks better so anyway. Yoenit (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• You can use http://www.measuringworth.com to convert the $6M figure to today's dollars; I think it would help at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the link. I don't like inflation conversions myself, but I will keep it in mind if somebody asks for them. (or did you just do that?) Yoenit (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Let's see if anyone asks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• The possessive of "Massachusetts" is just too awkward, with all those sibilant sounds; the apostrophe is more common than 's, but even more common is to reword, which I did. - Dank (push to talk) 20:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Always learning more Yoenit (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Do you happen to have a link for the 3-inch/50 caliber gun? - Dank (push to talk) 23:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • No, there is an article called 3"/50 caliber gun, but it is about the post-WW1 guns [14], while these were the early guns [15]. Yoenit (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • For readers who don't already know the jargon, "3-inch (80 mm)/50 caliber" looks weird, as if it's 80 mm divided by 50; and it also looks wrong to readers who do know the jargon, since they're not going to read "3-inch (80 mm)/50 caliber" anywhere but Wikipedia. We got a change to WP:MOSNUM this summer so that now we omit the unit conversions inside a link, and I prefer the way that looks, so I'm going to red-link it; hopefully someone will create a stub, including the conversion to 80 mm. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• "She saw little action other than summer cruises" ... depends what we mean by "action"; I usually think something more is going on during "action" than a summer cruise, but maybe this is okay. Anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 23:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps "little use other than"? Yoenit (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Support I think, per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 23:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As usual, thanks for your relentless copyediting Dank. Don't think I could ever get something to pass A-class without your help. Yoenit (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Pfft. There are lots of people here who help, I just get up earlier than they do :) And this is how writing works in the real world (that place where you get paid!) ... very few writers do it all themselves. You're a good researcher and you can say what you want to say, that's really all you need to be successful. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • there are no dab links, external links all work (no action required);
  • images seem to be appropriately licenced to me (no action required);
  • Citation # 4 "Bryan (1901)": there appears to be a punctuation issue or a sentence that should be moved to the Footnotes section "Retrieved 14 April 2010. , rounded average calculated from the experimental data in this paper, with BB-1 and BB-2 lumped together";
  • Citation # 7 "Friedman, U.S. Battleships, p. 24–25": this should have "pp." rather than "p." because it has multiple page ranges;
  • Citation # 17 "Graham & Schley, Schley and Santiago, pp. 93-94" should have an endash for the page ranges per WP:DASH;
  • in the Bibliography, the year ranges in the titles should have endashes;
  • in the Bibliography, could an OCLC number be added to the Graham and Winfield work? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    •  Done All issues adressed Yoenit (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my comments have been addressed. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• A couple of awkward tags that I added to the lede that need to be cleaned up.

Is the first one better now? I don't know what's wrong with the second one. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The first one is fixed, but the second one refers to the order of the clauses as noted in the comment itself. Surely the ship was used as a target before it was scuttled?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, she was scuttled in shallow water before being shot at. I am pretty sure her superstructure remained above water and they aimed at that, but it would OR to say so in the article. I included the part about shallow water in the sentence, hope it is clear now. Yoenit (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Titles of the refs need to be capitalized in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I hope you don't mind, but I've fixed the capitalisation issue, as I should have picked it up in my review. Good spot, Sturm. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, no, I don't mind at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - IMO the article meets all of the criteria. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 14:39, 14 August 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 03:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

SMS Rheinland

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

The last of the four Nassau-class battleships to grace the hallowed Milhist ACR page, Rheinland was the first vessel to be laid down but the third completed. I wrote this article primarily in May, and it has since passed a Good Article review and been copy-edited by Dank. I feel the article is at or close to A-class quality, and I look forward to working with the reviewers toward improving this article for an eventual run at FAC. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to examine the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • no dab links, no ext links (so none can be broken) (no action required);
  • some images have alt text, but the HMS Black Prince picture does not. I suggest it be added for consistency, but it is only a suggestion;
    • Added. Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the lead, this might need to be reworded slightly: "...sold the ship to ship-breakers in the Netherlands. The ship was eventually..." (ship is mentioned a few times);
    • How does it look now?
      • Looks good. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Battle of tghe Gulf of Riga section, sometimes you have "the Gulf" and then at other times "the gulf" (the capitalisation is the issue here, I think it is a proper noun so it should be "the Gulf");
    • Yeah, I did that on Westfalen too... Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the World War I section you have "of some 12 dreadnoughts", but then later in the Battle of Jutland section have this: "eleven German dreadnoughts". I think the eleven should be changed to 11 to satisfy the MOS;
    • Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • In the Battle of Jutland section, this sounds a little awkward: "Although the bulkhead was bulged in from..." (bulged in doesn't quite sound right to my ear, but I'm not sure what to suggest, sorry);
    • I changed it to "bent inward." What do you think of that? Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, that works. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Expedition to Finland section, I think this may have been brought up before - the Helsingfors/Helsinki issue. Not sure what was said last time, but I think there was a suggestion to include a bracketed comment beside Helsingfors that it is also known as Helsinki in Engish, e.g. "Helsingfors (Helsinki)...";
    • That's it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Fate section, I think a short explaination might be required for why the High Seas Fleet was interned in Scapa Flow, e.g under the provisions of the armistice. This could be done by just adding a short clause to the end of the first sentence of the section;
    • Done. Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References section, the year ranges should have endashes per WP:DASH;
    • Both ref issues have been fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References section some of the ISBNs have hyphens and some do not. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I don't see any edits of mine ... sorry if I forgot this one, I'll do it now. - Dank (push to talk)
• When I did an English-language Google search, I got many more hits for "German Imperial Navy" than for "Kaiserliche Marine", so I'm assuming the English term goes first with the German in parentheses ... does anyone know different? - Dank (push to talk)
• I don't know if you care about consistency with hyphens before "class", Nate ... if so, search for "Sachsen class armored frigate". - Dank (push to talk)
• Although "manned" is acceptable to some, and there's an argument that it fits with the wiki-philosophy that we're not trying to be in any sense "better" or "more sensitive" than our sources, I still think that we need to be aware that most writers, academics and professionals have felt that words like "manned" have been outdated since before 1980, and some feel they reflect negatively on the writer (and copyeditor!) ... even though the crew was (probably) all male. The thinking has been that the automatic and unconscious use of such words reinforces the bias that things will go horribly wrong if you put women on a ship. But I think the main argument isn't about "sensitivity", it's that I haven't seen the word for over 30 years in writing of the kind we're trying to emulate. - Dank (push to talk)
• I believe I've copyedited the Battle of the Gulf of Riga section before. - Dank (push to talk)
• Same with Battle of Jutland and the first paragraph in the next section. If someone could look through to make sure that the stuff that was copyedited before still looks good, I'd appreciate it. It's a fine article but I'll hold off on my support for now. - Dank (push to talk) 04:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Support per usual disclaimer. I finished up the copyediting I was asking for help with. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 22:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Support -- prose, sourcing, and supporting materials all look good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Oil or coal-fired?
• Conversion needed for ihp
• What time is used in the Jutland section?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • All fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:53, 13 August 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 01:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

September 1964 South Vietnamese coup attempt

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll)

Another coup! General Nguyen Khanh decided to declare a state of emergency, provoking massive demonstrations against the junta, and he then had to make lots of concessions, including a promise to eventually return to civilian rule, as well as sacking some disliked officers. They responded by trying to overthrow him, but the coup collapsed without fighting; later there was a sham press conference to deny that there were any disagreements and the coup plotters were acquitted for political reason YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/December 1964 South Vietnamese coup

• Support: no issues that I can see with this one. Comments for review purposes are:
  • there are no dab links, no broken ext links, images have alt text (no action required);
  • images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • I believe that the article meets all five A-class criteria:
    • A1: article is well referenced, with appropriate citation style, to reliable sources: yes;
    • A2: article is comprehensive, seems accurate (although I don't have specific knowledge), neutral and focused: yes;
    • A3: article is well structured: yes;
    • A4: article is well written in my opinion and would not require much work to be MOS compliant or reach FA standards: yes;
    • A5: article has appropriate images which are licenced correctly (as per above): yes.
  • I made a couple of tweaks, please check that you are happy with them. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I believe the article meets the A-class criteria. A couple of minor comments:

• Fourth para of the lead, "oncerned" should be "concerned"

Thanks YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 03:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I know that some writers would question the use of the word "However,..." to begin various sentences in the article. (NB: I'm not one of them, but...!)
• "Minh reportedly claimed that Khanh was the only one who would get funding from Washington, so they support him, prompting Khiem to angrily say "Obviously, Khanh is a puppet of the US government, and we are tired of being told by the Americans how we should run our internal affairs".[11]" - unclear if this sentence means that both Minh's and Khiem's comments were reportedly said, or if Minh's was reported and Khanh's was definitely made.

I removed "reportedly" as nobody has disputed it etc YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 03:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Several US advisers attached to units involved in the coup were chased away by rebel officers who did not want interference." - I wasn't sure if this meant that they were expelled from the units with which they were already based, or if they were chased away by the officers when they turned up at the barracks.

They were already there on a day-to-to-basis, which was clarified YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 03:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hchc2009 (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 03:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support: No major issues, although there are some stylistic things that might need attention.

• 3rd paragraph of the lead "behind the scenes" might not be needed. It could just read "supported by".
• This line "Khiem and Thieu sought out US Ambassador Maxwell Taylor and sought a private endorsement for a coup" might read better without using sought twice. Something like "Khiem and Thieu sought out US Ambassador Maxwell Taylor for a private endorsement of a coup" would read better, IMO.
• I'm also not sure about the "chased away" reference mentioned above. The wording makes it sound like they were physically driven away from units (it brings to mind a pretty comical image, actually). Would "banned from observing coup units" or something similar work for you?

Aside from those little quibbles this is a good article, IMO.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, I think YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:58, 17 August 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 12:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

British Commandos

Nominator(s): Jim Sweeney (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review, it has been through a peer review and has just been passed as a Good Article. I believe it may meet the A class standard. Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a note on the link checker tool it keeps showing a link to the London Gazette as dead. I believe there must be a fault as its Gazette issue 37134 which is ref number 75. When you click on the link it goes to the correct page and article. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Coming along quite nicely, Jim, I have the following comments:
  • no dabs, all images have alt text, ext links work (as Jim mentions above, the tool had a problem with one, but a manual check confirms it is working fine);
  • images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • in the Formation section you have linked "Lieutenant Colonel" and "Lieutenant-Colonel" (note the slight difference). This is three issues, (1) overlink; (2) inconsistency in terminology and (3) incorrect capitalisation in the second mention, where it should be lowercase per WP:MILMOS#Capitalization;
  • in the Commando units section, in this clause the capitalisation of "Commanding officer" is incorrect: "For transport the commando had one car for the Commanding officer..." (it should be all lower case as it is not a proper noun in this case);
  • in the Commando units section, I think "Hundredweight" should be "hundredweight";
  • in the Commando units section, I think "Heavy Weapons Troop" should be "heavy weapons troop";
  • in the Commando units section, you have this: "In February 1942 the Royal Marines were asked to organise Commando units of their own and 6,000 men volunteered". I thought that the RM Commandos weren't all volunteers. I seem to remember reading this somewhere, or am I mistaken in this?
  • in the Commando brigades section you have "Dutch troop", but then later "Dutch Troop" (e.g. in the Legacy section). I think in this case it should be capitalised as Dutch Troop as I think it is a proper noun;
  • in the Training section you have linked Belgium, France, Netherland, Norway and Poland, but these terms should probably be linked on first mention earlier in the article, (e.g. in the Organisation/Commando units section);
  • in the Norway subsection of Operations, you have wikilinked "Royal Navy" however this has been linked earlier;
  • in the Mediterranean subsection of Operations, you have this: "It was during Operation Roast that Major Anders Lassen, previously of No.62 Commando, now attached to the Special Air Service, was awarded a posthumous Victoria Cross." I think this should be reworded to something like this: "It was for his actions during Operation Roast that Major Anders Lassen..." (one presumes that the award of the VC took some time, hence it probably wasn't made while the operation was still underway, which is what the current wording implies). I also think that the use of the word "now" is problematic here as it creates a tense issue;
  • in the Mediterranean subsection you have wikilinked "other ranks", however, this has already been linked previously;
  • in the France subsection you have wikilinked "Victoria Cross", but this should be wikilinked earlier when it is first mentioned in the Mediterranean section;
  • in the Operations section, I'm wondering if a section shouldn't be added discussing the operations undertaken after D-Day, e.g. the advance over the Rhine, etc;
    • I was trying to avoid redoing the main article British Commando operations during the Second World War in fact there were only two major operations in Europe commandos were involved with. The battle of the Scheldt and the Rhine crossing. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:29, 22 July
      • I can understand that, Jim. This is meant to be a summary article, so you don't need to go into too much detail. I'd like to suggest adding just a small section on these operations, though, because as it stands the casual reader might think that the Commandos didn't go beyond France. I believe that they were largely just used like infantry battalions in this phase and participated in the general operation/advance rather than "raiding, etc.", so perhaps just a three or four sentence paragraph detailing this and linking the two major ops that they took part in? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Burma subsection I think it best if "Lt G Knowland" was spelled out in full as "Lieutenant George Knowland";
  • Citations # 6 and 48 "Moreman, p.13" should be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS;
  • Citations # 22 and 63 "Chappell, p.15" should be consolidated per above;
  • Citations # 23 and 64 "Saunders, p.52" should be consolidated per above;
  • Citations # 34 and 62 "van der Bijl, p.23" should be consolidated per above;
  • Citations # 35 and 78 "van der Bijl, p.19" should be consolidated per above;
  • Citations # 66 and 67 "Saunders, p. 55" should be consolidated per above;
  • Citations # 71 and 72 "Saunders, p. 61" should be consolidated per above;
  • Also, I made a few tweaks to the article, please check that you are happy with them. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks once again for the tweaks and the review. See answer to Rhine crossing--Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done sections on the Scheld and Germany added --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support
Overall, this article is quite good and I intend to support its promotion, but I have a couple of minor concerns first:

• I have made some edits (please confirm you are happy, and or revert/tweak any that have misinterpreted your intent);

No happy with changes.

• There are some very long paragraphs that need to be split, and there are some very short ones that probably should be merged;

Tweaked a few

• I think you overuse terms like 'their' and 'they' through out the article;

After pointed out see what you mean -I have gone back and reworded sections.

• I would like to see the article get another copy edit if possible (I will have a go at parts where I can). Anotherclown (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)).

Request made for copy edit at the Guild.

•  Done can you check see if your happy so far, just need the copy editors guild to respond. Thanks for the review. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Done --I have done another round of copy edits and will look it over again later to see if anything got missed. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Top work so far. I'm still a little confused as to what is meant by this sentence though: "From 1944 there were two other Commando units that were part of the Army Holding Commando Wing and the Royal Marine Holding Commando Wing. Both were under the command of the Operational Holding Commando Headquarters." Were two units added to the Army Holding Commando Wing and the Royal Marine Holding Commando Wing, or were they the two units you are referring to? Anotherclown (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)  Done

Reworded From 1944 the Operational Holding Commando Headquarters was formed. It was responsible for the Army Holding Commando Wing and the Royal Marine Holding Commando Wing. Both holding Commando wings had an establishment of five troops and a heavy weapons troop of fully trained commandos. The men in these troops were to provide individual or complete troop replacements for the Commando units in the field. - Does that make more sense ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes thats good, thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Also could the following paragraph be expanded a little (even two more sentences would be enough IMO)? "In November 1942, No. 1 and No. 6 Commandos formed part of the spearhead for Allied landings in Algeria as part of Operation Torch.[68] The Tunisia Campaign followed the Torch landings. No. 1 and No. 6 Commandos were involved in first battle of Sedjenane between February and March 1943.[69]" Anotherclown (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)  Done

Expanded section --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

All my comments have been addressed so I'm happy to support. Anotherclown (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments: This is a good looking article with plenty of detail: content wise its ready for A class in my opinion, but I'm not so sure about the presentation of that content at the moment. While I appreciate that the article has recently had a copy edit, I'm afraid I think it needs a much more thorough going over. There are several grammar, prose and tense problems throughout the article. I've included a smattering of example, but this isn't exhaustive (if it was I'd just fix them myself);

• "In November 1940 the new army units were organised into a Special Service Brigade under Brigadier J. C. Haydon, with four Special Service Battalions. By the autumn of 1940 more than 2,000 men had volunteered for commando training, and the Special Service Brigade now consisted of 12 units which were called Commandos. Each Commando would number around 450 men, commanded by a lieutenant colonel. The Commando unit was divided into troops of 75 men and further divided into 15 man sections. The men were all volunteers seconded from other British Army regiments, but retained their own regimental cap badges and remained on the regimental roll for pay." This is too complicated and could be summarised in a much more concise way, eg. "In November 1940 the new army units were organised into a Special Service Brigade consisting of four battalions under the command of Brigadier J. C. Haydon. By the autumn of 1940 more than 2,000 men had volunteered for commando training and the Special Service Brigade expanded to 12 units known as Commandos. Each Commando was led by lieutenant colonel and numbered around 450 men (divided into 75 man troops that were further divided into 15 man sections). The men retained their own regimental cap badges and remained on the regimental roll for pay." (The info about volunteers is already mentioned in the first line of the paragraph).

Changed to suggestion

• Tense varies: the above paragraph uses both past and present, in the second para of the organisation section it is future (ie. each unit would now consist of).

Done

• Awkward or stilted prose - eg.
  • "The Commando volunteers started training on the day they arrived by having to complete an 8-mile (13 km) forced march in full kit"

Done

• • "The Commandos initially were indistinguishable from the rest of the British Army"

Done

• • "The third Commando raid, conducted in Norway, was Operation Claymore in March 1941, by No. 3 and No. 4 Commandos"

Done

• • "...took part in Operation Basalt, which resulted in the death of four Germans and one captured."

Done

• • "The Thompson submachine gun was their submachine gun of choice, and, like the Bren gun, the Commando section was issued more weapons than a normal infantry section." (Sorry, but I had to laugh when I read that last one!)

Yes it should have read more submachine guns

• Short sentences that should be reworded into other bits - eg.
  • "Living conditions were primitive"
  • "On arrival they were met by Vaughan"

Done

• • "The 1st Commando Brigade had returned to England after Normandy to rest and regroup. They soon returned to mainland Europe to conduct operations."

Changed text

• • "The United States Army Rangers can also trace their origins to the British Commandos. The Rangers were formed on 7 June 1942. Their first volunteers were from troops stationed in Northern Ireland. "

Changed text

• Commas before "and" - have spotted a few where they shouldn't be.

Think I have got all of them

I'd recommend getting someone with no connection to the subject to go through the article and reword it thoroughly. Getting it out of the way in one heavy blitz, rather than piecemeal, will probably assist its long term FA hopes.

Some other points:

• The first sentence doesn't say what the commandos are and is quite convoluted. How about "The Commandoes were a British Army special ops unit/formation formed in 1940 following an order..." or something like that?

Done

• The whole Commando Brigades section seems to be a history of the individuals brigades' actions. Wouldn't this info be better folded into the Operations section, and just keep the first few lines for the organisation section (ie. how the brigades evolved). There is a great deal of repeated information.

Deleted and incorporated in ops section where needed

• "The No. 3 (X) Troop was possibly the most diverse unit in the British Army, as it consisted of enemy aliens." This is quite a bold statement and should either be very well sourced or reworded. Can it actually be true anyway? There were less enemy countries than allied, so units formed of English, Scottish, Welsh, European and American troops would surely have a more diverse mix of men.

Changed wording

• A lot of the image captions are complete sentences and need full stops.

Done

• The battle honours in the infobox are very long and would probably be better included in a subsection of the legacy or operations in the main text.

This come about from the GA review but I have returned them to there own section Battle Honours

Like I said, the content is good, but I think the prose needs work. Ranger Steve (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank for the review I think I have coved all the points --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I’m truly sorry to say this Jim, but I don’t think you have. As I said above, these were a range of examples of the various problems I see throughout the article and I really think a very very thorough copy-edit is necessary to clear out all the others. There are numerous grammar and prose issues in every section, and I’m afraid on that basis alone I’m probably going to have to oppose unless one can be carried out in time. I would have a go myself if I had more time (sorry).

For example, in the points I raised above, The sentence “The third Commando raid, conducted in Norway, was Operation Claymore in March 1941, by No. 3 and No. 4 Commandos” now reads “The first Commando raid on Norway, was Operation Claymore in March 1941, by the men of No. 3 and No. 4 Commandos.” This isn’t really an improvement as the prose is stilted and there's no verb. A better wording would be “The first Commando raid in Norway, Operation Claymore, was conducted in March 1941 by men of No.s 3 and 4 Commando.” (note that the first two parts of this sentence can be swapped). The Vaughan sentence now reads “After arriving at the commando depot they were met by Lieutenant Colonel Vaughan. He stressed the difficulties of the course and said that any who failed would be 'Returned to Unit' (RTU).” This can be made much more fluid as a single sentence like “On arrival at the depot they were met by Vaughan, who stressed the physical demands of the course and that any man who failed to live up to them would be ‘returned to unit’ (RTU).”

Picking a fresh section at random, the Channel Islands section illustrates several of these issues. At present the first para says:

"There were seven commando raids in the Channel Islands. The first, in July 1940, was Operation Ambassador. With 100 men taking part, was also the largest; the rest were all much smaller raids. The next raid, in September 1942, was Operation Dryad, by 12 men of No. 62 Commando. This raid on the Le Casquets lighthouse was more successful. Seven prisoners were taken, and several codebooks were found and taken back to England for analysis. The second raid was followed a few days later by Operation Branford, which was a reconnaissance mission to locate a suitable gun position to support a future raid on Alderney. In October 1942, 12 men from No.s 12 and 62 Commandos took part in Operation Basalt, during which some Germans were killed and one prisoner was taken."

This needs work. There are several stunted sentences, way too many commas that break the flow of the prose and two different prepositions of place at work. Keeping much the same wording but redoing the grammar, a better alternative would be:

"There were seven commando missions carried out on the Channel Islands during the war. Operation Ambassador was the first and largest of these, employing 140 men from No. 3 Commando and No. 11 Independent Company in a night raid on 14 July, 1940. Later raids were much smaller; only 12 men of No. 62 Commando took part in Operation Dryad in September 1942, successfully taking seven prisoners and locating several German codebooks. Operation Branford, a reconnaissance mission that aimed to identify a suitable gun position to support future raids on Aldernay, followed only days later. In October of that year 12 men from No.s 12 and 62 Commando took part in Operation Basalt, a raid on Sark that saw four Germans killed and one taken prisoner."

In the second para, not enough information is forthcoming for the sentences to make sense without following a link. What cliffs? What islands? It should be “there were no signs” or “there was no sign”, not “there was no signs”. “Which resulted two deaths and one wounded” isn’t correct either.

Please don’t think I’m being picky; I’m really not, but I just see these sorts of grammatical and prose errors everywhere, and for A class they really need to be sorted out. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No thanks for the review prose is never my strong point. the changes suggested above have been made and I will ask the copy editors guild to have another look. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. I have gone over the article again and made some more edits. A couple of points for Ranger Steve.

• If there is a list of 2 items, there is no comma, but when listing three or more things, there can be a comma before the word "and". For example, "apples and oranges" is correct. "peaches, apples, and oranges" is correct. [16]
• We are supposed to avoid using a word ending with "-ing" after a comma. The second phrase is confusing as it is difficult for the reader to tell what the subject of the verb is. See User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing. Your suggestion to say Operation Ambassador was the first and largest of these, employing 140 men from No. 3 Commando does not agree with Tony's advice.

If you feel the article still needs more copy edits you might approach User:SMasters who is a professional editor and co-member of the guild. And when I helped with Indiana class battleship a fellow named User:Dank did copy edits in conjunction with the A-class review that really took the article to the next level. I don't know him and have no notion if he would help; just a suggestion. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks once again for the copy edit.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points:

• Thanks for your comments Diannaa, but I’m not aware that I mentioned Oxford Commas anywhere in my comments above. Commas can of course be used at an editors discretion in lists before and, but that isn’t the same as overusing them in a general sentence (such as the example where I mention them above). As for “ings”, well I don’t pretend to be a copy-editor, I just wanted to offer Jim some suggestions to show good faith. However I’m not sure the grammar is the same as in Tony’s examples, (I thought ‘these’ was a pronoun in this example). I don’t think you can disagree that the sentence in question has been improved from its former state (I notice you haven’t adjusted it), and it’s such a common form that you’ve even done it yourself… (in the Netherlands section) ; ) I do happen to notice several more much worse examples in the article though (“with volunteers retaining their own regimental headdress and insignia”, “their sniping of the gun crews”, “The attack failed, with the unit suffering heavy casualties”).

*I’ve asked EyeSerene for some help in addition to Jim’s request at the guild. I really think if this article gets a good going over now, it’ll be FA quality.

• In the France section I think a wee bit of expansion may be needed; although the objectives of Lord Lovat’s commandos are mentioned, it doesn’t state if they achieved them and jumps from D-Day to ten weeks later.

Ok bit more added

• In the Norway section, is the comparison between a British infantry division and the entire German garrison of the country a necessary/valid one? If it was comparing two different occupational forces it would be relevant, but an occupying force and a structural infantry unit aren’t really the same thing (ie. the size of a British infantry division really has nothing to do with how many German’s were posted to Norway).

The total is given as a example the average layman/person will have no idea of how many men are in a division. If we just leave it as By 1944 the garrison had risen to 370,000 men'. its factual and accurate but giving the comparison of 18,347 men in a British division allows them to judge just how many men this is without saying 370,000 is about 17 divisions which would be OR. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I figured it was a layman comparison, but is there anything more relevant that could be used? I don't know if there are any figures for the occupations of other countries for instance? Or how about "by comparison the Allies only landed 130000 men on the first day of the Invasion of Normandy"? Just a thought. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Ranger Steve. You are right that it is a very common construction and I expect it really only interrupts the flow when it becomes unclear what the verbs are doing. Hopefully more experienced editors will have time to help. Once we get to A-class and beyond, professional help is the ticket to success. I am merely an interested amateur. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I was going to do a bit more work today, but on re-reading, I think the article easily makes A-Class now. Well done both of you Jim and Diannaa. I've commented above about the division thingy Jim, but regardless it won't affect my Support for the article. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:06, 8 August 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 07:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

HMS Speedy (1782)

Nominator(s): Benea (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has passed GA review, and I believe it meets the necessary requirements. Benea (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support

• No disamb links and no problems with external links but the images need alt text added

• Added text

• At her completion she had cost £4,200.7s.3d to build. Sadly I am old enough to be able to convert this but for younger readers it might be beneficial to convert into present money or round it off (its £4,200.36p).

• I don't see much point in this, if the historical amount were to be converted, it should be into its modern equivalent, rather than to apply a decimal system that did not exist to a historical figure. Our featured article on a contemporary ship (HMS Endeavour) does not convert the sum.

• • I've wikilinked the £, s and d for the benifit of those who are not familiar with the pre-1971 British currency system. Mjroots (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Do we know why she kept getting paid off in her early career ?

• This was a common occurrence in peacetime for practically every type of warship, and usually happened with the change of commander. After fairly long or arduous commissions, the ship would be taken into the dockyard, the crew often dispersed among the other ships of the fleet, and usually a survey carried out. The ship was then laid up until such time that the Admiralty decided on a use for her, and any repairs or refits were carried out before the ship recommissioned under a new commander.

• should Ship of the line be used to describe HMS Agamemnon ?

• By this stage (the mid-1790s) the 64-gun ships were no longer considered ships of the line, as their armament was no longer sufficient to stand in the line of battle (at least that was the conventional wisdom). The 74 guns became the smallest rated ships that were considered suitable as 'ships of the line', and the 64s were gradually being phased out of the navy by this time.

• I know what you mean by piece of plate but it does sound like broken crockery is there a link you could use ?

• The closest I can think of is Silver (household).

I added some links you might want to check to ensure your happy with them --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done what I can to address these issues. Best, Benea (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've raised an issue with the infobox on the article's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• "winning fame for herself": I won't fiddle with this because I see it as a "neutral tone" issue more than a matter for a copyeditor. The term "fame" is certainly more acceptable in articles set in the 18th century than the 20th, but I still think some reviewers may prefer terms like "distinction" (which you use), "honor", "honors", "commendations", etc. - Dank (push to talk)

• Are you suggesting it be changed? Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not experienced enough with articles on 18th century ships to know yet. OTOH, neither are some of the reviewers you'll encounter here and at FAC, and I don't know how they'll respond ... so for now, do nothing, but have a few examples ready if necessary at FAC of articles that use similar language in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 16:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Btw, I don't claim any good feel for British English, please correct me if I get it wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 22:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Echoing what MJ said, you may have trouble with "£4,200.7s.3d" at FAC, despite the fact that similar notation made it through another FAC. I'm not sure, but my reading of WP:$ is that "£" is fine at first occurrence for UK-specific articles, but not everyone will be expected to know "s" and "d". Linking them in the text as well as MJ's helpful links in the infobox might make a difference, I don't know. - Dank (push to talk)

• A conversion can be added, ie that the sum was 'roughly equivalent to £652,200 in present day terms.' For some reason the template does not allow the figure to be expressed naturally as '£403,000' though. Would this help? Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've added this to the article, and have linked the £. s. d. in the article body. Feel free to remove it again if it looks problematic. Benea (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it would help, and I think that would probably be okay (assuming we're preparing for FAC, this is certainly FAC-worthy). I guess my strategy at FAC, whenever possible, is to edit in a way that minimizes the chance that anyone will quote WP:MOSNUM for any reason ... it's better if those conversations just don't even get started. - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I get a ghit on Gourjean road (i.e. roadstead) as a small French gulf, but it's not on Wikipedia yet; I've red-linked it. - Dank (push to talk)
• "she mistook Captain Thomas Fremantle's Inconstant ...": Who mistook? Can I assume "her captain" would work? - Dank (push to talk)

• I've changed it to this in the article. Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• "The British force boarded and carried both ships, and then brought off ...": sorry, I'm not following "carried" or "brought off". - Dank (push to talk)

• I've reworded this to make it clearer. 'Carried' means to capture in this context, 'brought off' refers to the ships being re-floated and sailed away from the enemy. Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• "The Spanish ran in to a small sandy bay": if you meant "ran" as in, the wind was behind them, then I need to change it back and link it, but to avoid misunderstanding of "ran", I changed it to "sped". - Dank (push to talk)

• No, the meaning here is not to do with one of speed, though the implication is that it happened quickly, but as you note, the question of wind direction. They ran in with the wind, rather than having to warp in, for example. I've changed it back, though I'm not sure what you would link it to though.Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience ... in retrospect, waking up to see someone made 52 edits to your excellent article might not have been the most clever way to begin a collaboration :) I should have taken the time to scan your other articles and get a sense that if you said "ran", you probably meant "ran". I look forward to learning a lot from you, as I have from Parsecboy, Sturmvogel_66 and others. - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Also ... I linked it, I use Sailing#Running but there may be other links that are better. - Dank (push to talk) 16:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like a good link to me! Benea (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• I also changed "Speedy ran" to "Speedy raced"; same point. - Dank (push to talk)

• As above. Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Did you mean "cannonade" instead of "carronade"? - Dank (push to talk)

• Works for me. Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• "increase the volatility of his new command": I don't follow. - Dank (push to talk)

• Cochrane tried to give Speedy a more powerful armament, to make her more of a threat to enemy shipping, more likely to triumph in combat, etc, by fitting her with more and larger guns. Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Would "armament" be acceptable? - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Fine by me. Benea (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• "learned" sounds wrong to Brits and "learnt" sounds wrong to us (even uneducated and backwoodsy to some). I substituted "discovered"; hope that's okay. - Dank (push to talk) 04:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• If it's going to be a significant issue then no I don't have a problem with it. Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's completely optional how much you want to buy in to what I'm doing here; I'm trying to make the article transparent to Brits, Americans, and others ... especially Brits and Americans who might review it at FAC :) OTOH, I definitely don't want to dumb it down, remove all the nautical terms, or change your style to my style. I routinely ask the American editors to make changes so that the articles will be more accessible in Commonwealth countries; read any of the recent A-class articles and see if you agree that they don't sound "disagreeably American" to your ear (and if they do, tell me!). But the bottom line is that this is not my article, and the guidelines are clear that it's okay if language doesn't sound right to everyone in every country, so feel free to revert anything I do or tell me off. (I mean that; productive relationships between professional writers and professional copyeditors always involve some degree of irritation. It comes with the territory, and I don't mind.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Edits look fine and helpful so far! Benea (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• A suggestion (feel free to revert): since "broadside(s)" means four different things, I'd like to add a link. I think the most helpful description for this article is Broadside#As a measurement, but that doesn't fit the first occurrence, so I rewrote the first occurrence and linked the second. - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Looks OK. Benea (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• "The Spanish faltered at [the sight of sailors in black-face]": understood that the victors write the histories, and there's not a lot we can do other than go with our sources, but I generally distrust the parts of the accounts that talk about how the enemy trembled in the face of the mighty/scary/disguised/whatever heroes. I suspect the Spanish didn't do significantly more or less trembling than anyone else being run at with pointy swords. I made the edit; YMMV. - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Fair enough, though writers emphasise the importance of inflicting confusion and surprise on the enemy, when some of the crew hesitate, so the effect spreads. The black faced boarders were to imitate the pirates and moorish corsairs the Spanish had centuries of experience with, and to confuse and dismay them. He followed this up with the attack from the waist, leaving the Spanish surrounded. It's probably too much detail for here, and I'm happy with the reword. Benea (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now I get it. I have no objection to adding that, especially if there are sources that echo the same thing from the point of view of the Spanish crew. - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Gotta make a store run so I'll hurry this up. having "at the time the only person on Speedy" so close to "leaving only the ship's doctor aboard" may not be "tight" enough for FAC ... it might slide through but I like to edit defensively. However, I can't figure out what would be better. Anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I see what you mean, but it seems to emphasise the important aspects of the action, firstly Cochrane's daring in taking practically his entire crew onto the enemy ship (where they were still outnumbered 6 to 1), and then his bravado at calling for 50 more men, when there was not a single man to spare. Both factors were crucial elements in the subsequent victory. If there are no suggestions, perhaps see if this becomes a problem later? Benea (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Anyone think we should link "struck his colours"? I can't decide. - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I usually do to be honest, and have linked it here. Benea (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• I translated the bit in the last section but my French is pretty poor, someone check it please. - Dank (push to talk) 20:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• "burnt" is okay with me, "learnt" isn't ... inconsistent I know, but "learnt" ... ew. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Support per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. If forced to choose one ship article out of the last 20 to make into a movie, it would be this one, it's not even close. - Dank (push to talk) 20:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support promotion too. I'm not an A-class reviewer but the article is looking in pretty good shape now. No doubt it will be pushed on to FA before too long. Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Looks very good to me, I just have a couple of minor comments:

• • there is quite a bit of whitespace in the French Revolutionary Wars section when I view the article due to the placement of the Cunningham image (this might just be my screen, though);
  • some of the ISBNs are hyphenated, but others arent (these should be consistent);
  • the titles in the References should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles;
  • could OCLC numbers be added to the works without ISBNs? The Ralfe work can be found here, I think: [17]

AustralianRupert (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've addressed these issues in the latest edit, though there is no whitespace that I can see. Benea (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:42, 6 August 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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 07:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Rivadavia class battleship

Nominator(s): —Ed (talk • majestic titan)

The last article in a future FT. These ships saw five of the major world powers of the time—France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States—competing over the contracts to build them. Argentina used this hypercompetition to get what were probably the most advanced battleships in the world, but they were quickly eclipsed by more powerful and more numerous fleets of the major powers. Still, the intrigue during and even after their construction was surprisingly interesting to me; I hope it is to you as well. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• SupportComments - Infobox needs conversions, currently its only in metric. More later... -MBK₀₀₄ 06:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • My bad, I haven't even touched the infobox yet. I'll fill it out and convert it tomorrow. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Done —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
      • What else I would have brought up has already been, therefore I have switched to support. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comments
• It would be good to link Bernardino Rivadavia and Francisco Moreno. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Already done in Service histories! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• In "revamped order" - the meaning of "order" is a bit unclear "order of battle" or "building program"? Same for "new order". Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Reworded, I repeated essentially the same thing three times in that sentence... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• "her rivals" - may be too vague for the third sentence. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Changed —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• "tendered bids" are commonly called "tenders" or "bids", the link is there for clarification. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Good catch —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• "bring the contracts back home". Check contract -> contracts in the sentence. "win the contract" may read more easily. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Another great suggestion. It's "contracts" because Argentina was looking for two and possibly three ships. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• "hyper-competitive market" might be better as "hyper-competitive environment". Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Done —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Suggest "During the course of the construction, the battleships were frequently the subject..." Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Done, but reworded even farther —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• "Stricken on 1 February 1957" -> "Struck from navy lists on 1 February 1957" Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Done —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Check double linking of call for bids in "were solicited in 1908 by open tender" Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I double link if it appeared in the lead—I'm not sure if this is unusual, but I skip lead paras most of the time when reading an article. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• "38 different shipyards" -> 38 shipyards. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Removed, see below —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• "Plans were received from a total of 38 different shipyards, 15 of these from five nations—the United States, Great Britain, Germany, France, and Italy—bid for the battleships." is difficult to read. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Reworked. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• "The president of the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company believed that the United States would not receive contracts due to a large amount of European meddling in Argentina". Meddling reads as POV, despite it possibly being his interpretation. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Tried to reword, it's his interpretation —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Check "diplomacy is are being made use of" Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It's "are" —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Is this quote desirable at all? Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure—it seemed relevant when I added it. ;) If you don't think it is, swoop in and remove it. It's not integral. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• "and Italy last." Third? Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Sixth. Livermore doesn't go into who / what contracts on on the list aside from what I included... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• "required specifications" -> "specifications" Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Done —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• The lead implies that there were three rounds of tendering, the design section mentions two. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Sigh. I'm not sure what to do here, because while Scheina and Livermore both explicitly say Argentina threw out the bids twoice (making three rounds—opening tenders, second round, third round), Livermore doesn't identify what round he talks about...he only discusses one, but later says that the Argentina naval commission had gotten a better battleship by forcing the companies to revise their submissions twice (emphasis mine). See also note 5. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Under armor, nickel steel is maraging steel and medium steel is a grade of carbon steel. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I was not aware of that! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • no dab links, external links all work (no action required);
  • images could have alt text added, but this is not a requirement (suggestion only);
  • I think File:Rivadavia class battleship diagrams Brasseys 1923.jpg needs a different licence - it seems to be relying on the death of the author, but says that the author is not identified;
  • I made a couple of minor tweaks for italics and full stops in the citations (please check you agree with these), otherwise it looks quite good to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm going to wait for everyone to decide whether alt text is necessary, and if it is, what form it should take, before doing it. :-)
    • Fixed Brassey's. Jappalang fixed a similar image's license in Minas Geraes' FAC, so I copied that over.
    • Your minor tweaks were spot on. Good catches. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support: my concern has been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• SupportComments
  • You've got 14 inch (305mm) in the infobox; I know off the top of my head 305mm is 12 inches, so that needs to be fixed.
    • You're right, must have been a typo. —Ed (talk • majestic titan)
  • The cost figures are confusing; you have the British lowering their bids in US dollars, and the US bids figured in pounds. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Also, if possible, could you convert them so the reader isn't comparing apples to oranges?
    • Good point. How did I miss that before? Conway's gave it in pounds, Livermore gave it in dollars. I'll find a currency converter next time I'm online —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Started to, then quit, I should be able to finish this tomorrow —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
        • {{Inflation}} might come in handy here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Did not even see this reply until now. :-) I used Measuring Worth for all the conversions and linked to the site in footnote 1. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe specify that Bahia was a cruiser, as it appears now it looks like another battleship.
    • Fixed —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The service history section states that the ships were converted to oil-firing boilers, but later on it blames their inactivity during WWII partially on a lack of coal.
    • Removed. I'm not sure why I wrote that...thinking of WWI maybe? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The photo of Rivadavia's main gun and armor - do we have any proof that it's part of the Bain collection? If not, it'll need to go. You could probably just contact the LoC and ask. Parsecboy (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll send off an email tomorrow, I'm falling asleep here :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Email sent —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Anything yet on the photo? Maybe you should remove it (hopefully only temporarily) until you get a response, so it doesn't hold up the ACR from passing. Parsecboy (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Parsecboy (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • • • • • See below, I replied in the wrong spot. :p It's not part of their collections, so I'm getting rid of it now. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• • There aren't as many as I'd hoped, but there are a few. I'll be uploading them as soon as I can. The main gun and armor photo is not part of their collection, though. Anyone have an pre-1990 Argentine naval photo album to satisfy commons:Template:PD-AR-Photo? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, and as for your comment in Moreno's ACR, there are two other views of the ship at the LOC, but they were taken at the same time and place as the lead image—just different angles. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Three photos uploaded: File:ARA Rivadavia speed trials 1.jpg, File:ARA Rivadavia speed trials 2.jpg, File:ARA Rivadavia launch.jpg. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
        • That second photo is pretty yellow; Hohum might be able to fix it up a bit. Everything has been fixed, so I'm moving to support. Parsecboy (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Group instead of series in the opening sentence?
  • Changed, that sounds much better —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• The four-inch guns seems to have been mounted in casemates and in pivot mounts. Is this correct? And if so, did they have gun shields?
• Translate the poundage of the deck armor into thickness. 40 lbs per inch of thickness is the ratio.
  • Done; I didn't know that, so thanks! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• I consolidated a bunch of the conversions in the Propulsion section for you.
  • I also didn't remember that {convert} can do that. Boy, you're just an expert with that template, eh? :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Otherwise looks good, despite a lack of info on their service careers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • At the risk of sounding like another editor, there isn't much on their careers. Early on, service was frequently interrupted by stints in reserve because of economic recessions. Later on (this is speculation, but probably accurate) they were used as status symbols while the more cost-efficient cruisers did the real work (and WWII patrolling). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment on a comment: best I can tell, "stricken from the register" and "struck from the register" are both fine. "naval vessel stricken register" (without quotes) gets about twice as many relevant ghits as ""naval vessel struck register". - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• I changed the "buisness" inside a quotation to [business]; the brackets should come off if it was just a typo. - Dank (push to talk) 23:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that was a typo -- thanks! —Ed (talk • majestic titan)
• How similar is the "Navy Board of Inspection" of that era to the current Board of Inspection and Survey? If it's much the same thing, then I suggest a wikilink. - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Link added —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• "The remainder of the 1920s along with the 1930s was filled with more training ...": suggestions anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 00:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe "The ship's crew conducted training cruises through the remainder of the 1920s and the 1930s." Always best to use active voice if possible or at least my wife tells me, when she proof-reads for me ;) Parsecboy (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Used your wording, although I added "diplomatic" as well. You have an in-house proofreader? So that's your secret. ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Support per usual disclaimer. Just finished a second copyedit; comments welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 01:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

*Is there a way to combine "Rivadavia and Moreno participated in training exercises, diplomatic cruises, and stints ..." with "The ship's crew conducted training and diplomatic cruises ..." just 3 sentences later? - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I got it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Support It looks good on the first quick read I gave so far. Good job Ed and all. WikiProject Argentina -- Alexf^(talk) 22:24, 28 July 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.

---

Courageous class battlecruiser

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think that it meets the standard and it's part of my nefarious scheme to bring all the British BCs up to FA class. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - the first and third paras of "design and description" have slightly different accounts of the importance of the 'Baltic project' to the design - there should probably be only one paragraph discussing the Baltic project, setting out all the relevant points of view. The Land (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Any views on this point? I think ti's quite an important one... The Land (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Just a few technical comments at the moment. I will come back after I've read the article a few times:
  • no dab links, ext links all work (no action required);
  • alt text could be added to the images, although this is not a requirement (suggestion only);
  • images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required). AustralianRupert (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the lead "...lessons learned thus far during the war" doesn't sound quite right to me, can I suggest rewording to "...the lessons that had been learned earlier in the war"?
    • Agreed
  • in the lead, I suggest wikilinking "barbette" if the article exists,
    • Done
  • in the Design section you have "15-inch" and then "eighteen-inch", I think it would be best if eighteen-inch was displayed as "18-inch";
    • Done
  • in the Design section, this - "...philosophy of speed over everything" - sounds a little strange to me, like it is missing a word. Perhaps try this: "...philosophy of speed over everything else"?
    • Reworded it a bit. See how it reads.
      • Looks good. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Design section, "The best example of this is from a letter..." seems a little awkward. Perhaps try this: "Fisher's adherence to this principle is highlighted in a letter he wrote to Churchill concerning the battlehsips of the 1912-13 Naval Estimates. In the letter, dated April 1912, Fisher stated: "There must be sacrifice of..."
    • I like your wording much better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "Fisher's desire for a shallow draught was not merely based on a desire..." The word "desire" is mentioned twice in this sentence, perhaps reword?
    • Need instead of desire will suffice, I think.
  • Same issue with "thus far" as mentioned in the lead - thus far indicates present tense (to my ear, at least), but it should be in past tense, so perhaps "at that point of the war" or something similar;
    • How does it read now?
      • Looks good, and good work decyphering my cryptic comment (I just realised how poorly I phrased this point!) AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "reevaluation" I think should be hyphenated as "re-evaluation";
    • Done.
  • in the Protection section, it says "After the Battle of Jutland 110 long tons...of extra protection was added to the deck..." Why was this? I seem to remember reading something somewhere about one of the Royal Navy ships blowing up at Jutland, but can't remember the details - was this the reason?
    • Yes, and I've added a little fuller explanation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Ships section, the information included in the table probably needs citations;
    • Done--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Post-war history section, "reused" I think should be hyphenated as "re-used";
    • Is this a Brit English thing? Because my dictionary doesn't use a hyphen.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Possibly, I'd just go with your dictionary if that's what it says. Its no major drama. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Post-war history section, the Main article link would probably look better I think if it were directly under the section title rather than in the middle of the section. Either, that or the link to the Courageous class aircraft carrier article could be added in to the prose. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Only a few minor nitpicks

• "The Courageous class were a class of three battlecruisers" or "...was a class of three battlecruisers"? Personally I'd say it should be "was" because class is singular, but English has some odd rules.
  • I always reword this kind of thing if possible, because one way sounds just wrong to Americans and the other way sounds just wrong to Brits.
    • Sounds like a wise solution :) EyeSerene^talk 16:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• The repetition of "supposedly" (in the lead and first para of Design and description) makes the text come across as uncertain and even teasing. Were they designed for the Baltic or not? Was there some subterfuge going on behind the scenes?
  • Great question. Enquiring minds want to know. - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Heh, I was waiting for the big reveal while reading through. EyeSerene^talk 16:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Supposedly is there because it was only one reason used to justify the existence of these ships; Fisher said that was why to one person and used other reasons to other people. Roberts is the only source who covers their origin in some detail and even he doesn't come to any conclusion. "... the evidence in the case of the three large light cruisers is far from clear. It seems likely that while Fisher did, initially, see them primarily for this role [Baltic Project] he never had an absolutely fixed plan in mind. His statements as to their purpose varied from time to time and it seems much more rational that he envisaged a number of roles for the ships which affected the requirements of the design."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks Strumvogel, that makes it much clearer. I've tried a little rewording - what do you think? Please rv if you're not happy with my tweaks. EyeSerene^talk 18:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Works for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• "...three divisions of minesweepers, eight German: sperrbrechers (cork-filled trawlers) and two trawlers..." I don't think you need the link to German language in the middle of this sentence; it breaks up the sentence and makes it difficult to parse.
  • Agreed, about to delete that link. On the question of whether to use the German word: it's often a hard call, it is here, I trust SVs judgment generally on these, and this English-language Google search does seem to support that the word is widely used in English sources. Btw, "cork-filled trawlers" is probably not the parenthetical definition I would use based on what I saw in the links; I saw minesweepers, minesweepers with flak cannons, minesweepers that used huge magnets, etc.
    • I'd have thought "eight sperrbrechers (appropriate definition) and two trawlers..." would be fine - from the context it's clear that it's a German word. EyeSerene^talk 16:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Sperrbrecher is a complicated word. In WWI it's used for ships designed to clear minefields by hitting the mines and were filled with cork, etc. to allow them to survive the explosion. I'm uncertain if they usually operated normal minesweeping gear during the war or not. In WW2 it was used for small minesweepers of about the same size as in WWI that were often used as escorts for coastal convoys and consequently fitted with flak guns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A light copyedit might be beneficial when you head FAC-wards, but other than that all I can say is congratulations on yet another well-researched, interesting article :) EyeSerene^talk 11:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Another fine article - well done all. EyeSerene^talk 16:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• • One light copyedit, coming up. - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Can anyone tell me if "learned" sounds plain wrong to British ears? If so, we'll have to go with "learnt" (ugh). - Dank (push to talk) 17:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "Learnt" is preferred in Br-E, but personally I wouldn't object too much to "learned". I think "learned" probably sounds less odd to British ears than "learnt" does to Americans, though it does sound juvenile (at least to me)... by which I mean it's the kind of thing British children say when they first discover the past participle -ed ending and use it inappropriately (ie "singed" instead of "sang"/"sung"). EyeSerene^talk 18:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, okay that's what I was afraid of, I'm rewriting that sentence to avoid "learned". - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Support per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. A few questions:

• turret, not turret (fixed ... just mentioning it because it keeps coming up)
  • Just me being lazy, I'll try to remember next time.
• "To save time, the installation used ...": design time? construction time?
  • Design.
• What does "T.I." mean in "triple T.I."?
• What are "PI* mounts"?
  • Got rid of both designations.
• "as it lacked the layers of empty and full compartments": that might be fine like it is, but would "and" be better than "as"?
  • No, because there's a causal relationship between the two clauses.
• Does "reached their absolute limit of advance" mean something different from "stopped"?
  • Yes (sort of). They reached a line on their maps past which they were forbidden to pass because of mines. Stopped implies lack of movement.
    • Okay, I tried "At 9:30 the 1st CS reached the line they had been ordered not to cross due to the threat of mines"; see if that works for you. - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Still not great. This is easily dealt with in military jargon like "stop line", but then you have to define it, which is hard to do so that it reads easily.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
        • What would be better? - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
          • I tweaked it to say "limit of its assigned combat area", but if it's important to mention the mines it could say "approached an area thought to be mined so the pursuit was broken off" or something? EyeSerene^talk 16:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
            • I think that you're in the right ballpark; right now I'm thinking along the long of "turned south to avoid minefields marked on their maps" or some such. It should tie in, I think, to the fact that the Admiralty's information on minefields was not distributed equally to all ships so that Courageous and Glorious turned aside from an area that the light cruisers charged blithely into. This needs to be added to the article on the battle at some point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• "Courageous fired 92 rounds of 15 inch while Glorious fired 57. They also fired 180 and 213 four-inch shells respectively.": seems like it belongs in the previous paragraph. You're the boss, but I'm wondering how many readers need this much detail.
  • Beats me, but I'm hardly a typical reader. But I always like to add that sort of gunnery detail to show how infrequently they actually hit anything. I added a bit reminding the reader that they only scored a single hit for all of those big shells expended.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Support minor issues that I brought up have all been addressed. One issue of wording has not been addressed but I am reasonably certain that it will be resolved. Since it is insignificant, there is no reason not to support this nomination. Comment - a few picky c/e questions I wanted to run by you :] I'm prone to being clueless about convention + such, so feel free to correct me. It's improved a lot since it was first put up for A-class review !

• "The first two Courageous-class battlecruisers were designed in 1915 to meet a set of requirements laid down with his Baltic Project in mind by the First Sea Lord of the Admiralty, Admiral Fisher." (section: Design and description)
  • I'm aware this sentence has been changed (Dank?) - however, the way the sentence is structured leaves me a little lost. It's definitely more clear than "supposedly for his Baltic Project." Perhaps "The first two Courageous-class battlecruisers were designed in 1915 to meet a set of requirements that First Sea Lord of the Admiralty, Admiral Fisher laid down with his Baltic Project in mind."? Feedback?
    • Not mine; see above.
      • I do like that phrasing better.
• "Fisher's desire for a shallow draught was not merely based on the need to allow for inshore operations, but reflected the lesson that ships tended to operate closer to deep load than anticipated and were found lacking in freeboard, reserve buoyancy and safety against underwater attack." (section: Design and description)
  • "Lesson" works, but doesn't feel quite appropriate - maybe "knowledge"? comments?
    • See if you like what I did. (<- that was Dank)
      • Yes indeed I like it. Thank you ! Icy // ♫ 15:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• "The main guns of the Courageous-class ships were controlled from either of the two fire-control directors." (section: Fire-control)
  • I'm hesitant to change it to "... ships could be controlled from either..." because I don't know if that would change the meaning and potentially falsify the sentence. Are specific guns controlled by specific directors? It doesn't seem that way, but I am no expert and can't be sure.
    • Seems okay, but I agree that this is a place where the reader might be unclear and might want to know more, if anyone wants to elaborate. - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
      • No, either director could control either turret. No specific assignments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Okay, great - no apparent objections, so I've added that in. Icy // ♫ 20:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• "A preliminary raid on German minesweeping forces on 31 October by light forces destroyed ten small ships and the Admiralty decided on a larger operation to destroy the minesweepers and their escorting light cruisers." (section: Second Battle of Heligoland Bight)
  • Did the Admiralty decide on such the larger operation due to the previous raid's success? If so then maybe you can break up the sentence specifying that where you have "... and the Admiralty..." right now.
    • If the sources say why certain decisions were made, we can repeat that, although personally I often doubt that the sources are wise or knowledgeable enough to be sure about intentions. But if the sources don't say, then we shouldn't insert that; it's okay to let the reader infer the connection, though. - Dank (push to talk)
      • I'm not at home right now and can't check the exact wording, but my memory is that the Admiralty wasn't satisfied with the success of the first op and wanted a bigger bag the second time around.
        • Unless you will be home pretty soon and will have a chance to check that out (and it's not too much of a bother), I'm not going to fuss. Thanks ! Icy // ♫ 20:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• "The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 required the signatory nations to severely curtail their plans for new warships as well as scrapping others." (section: Post-war history)
  • Eh... I'm a little lost here. The tenses feel a little mixed up - unless the Treaty itself is scrapping plans for new warships, I can't see why it isn't "required the signatory nations to severely curtail their plans for new warships as well as scrap others." Care to explain?
    • Doh, good catch. Fixed. - Dank (push to talk)
      • Tinkered with this section some more. See how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Lookin' good. - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Overall the article reads pretty nicely now (thank the awesome previous c/e'rs). I've made a few corrections of my own on the main article. Of course you can always disagree, give feedback, etc.  :] Icy // ♫ 14:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • Great job! - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 25 July 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 02:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)

Nominator(s):   Perseus 71 ^talk

This article was recently promoted to GA class. It had also undergone a Peer Review recently.

A1 - I believe that the article has sizable number of primary references with a uniform style of citation. All the major facts have been appropriately referenced.

A2 - I believe that this article covers all aspects of organization of Luftwaffe during WWII without going into the details of the history of the organization. There are two areas of this article which some have questioned if pertain to core topic. These are

• Finger Four Formation
• Aircraft Identification markings.

I personally feel that both of these are pertinent to the core topic as the finger four was an integral part of the Staffel hierarchy. The Identification markings were closely tied to Groups and Wing hierarchy. But I am open to other viewpoints. If there is a consensus on removing those then I am willing to do so.

A3 & A4 - This article has already underwent a major CopyEd by one of the editors from WP:GoCE. Hence the headings and hierarchy has been validated.

A5 - There are plenty of visual aids such as photos as well as an Org Chart.

I believe together these points make this article a candidate for A Class.   Perseus 71 ^talk 18:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • there are no dab links, and ext links all work (no action required);
  • alt text could be added to the images, although it is not a requirement (suggestion only);

Only two images do not have Alt text. The reason is, they are part of Template:Infobox military unit. The template does not support Alt Text from what I tried to find.   Perseus 71 ^talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked the mark up in the infobox so that the alt text will show with the two images in the infobox. Can you please check the other images, because they don't appear to have alt text to me? This tool indicates that they do not: [18]. To get it to turn on you need to have the |alt= parameter. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done I have added Alt text to all the images.   Perseus 71 ^talk 22:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• • File:DornierC-Legion.jpg needs a non-free media rationale for this article if it is being used under a claim of "fair use" as it appears on the image description page;

 Done

• • all other images (apart from the one above) appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • there is some issues surrounding the use of hyphens and endashes, for instance in the Luftwaffe and anti-aircraft units section you have "twenty–seven 20 mm Anti–Aircraft guns", per WP:DASH these should not be endashes but should just be normal hyphens;

I have normal hyphen at the said point not – in the "Luftwaffe anti-aircraft units" section. Can you please let me konw if I am looking in wrong place ?

I have fixed all the ones I can see. They should be fine now. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• • per above "re–designated" should be "re-designated";

 Done All the re-designated ones are converted.   Perseus 71 ^talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• • however, where you have used hyphens like this "Jagdgeschwader (JG) - a day fighter..." the hyphen should either be a spaced endash, or an unspaced emdash per WP:DASH;

 Done   Perseus 71 ^talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• • ranks when displayed as improper nouns should not be capitalised per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms, thus in ranks like "Major", "Colonel" etc. should not be capitalised. I believe, however, somewhat perversely that ranks in German should be capitalised;

 Done I have made honest effort to convert all the improper nouns. Kindly let me know if I missed any or assumed incorrectly.   Perseus 71 ^talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• • in the Non day fighter Units section there is a non sentence at the start "in 1941", I think this should be removed;

 Done   Perseus 71 ^talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• • in the Non day fighter Units section, in the heading the word "Units" should not be capitalised as such, it should be "units" as per the section above it "Day fighter units"'

 Done   Perseus 71 ^talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• • List of Luftwaffe Air Units I think should be "List of Luftwaffe air units";

 Done   Perseus 71 ^talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• • in the See also section there is an entry that is not wikilinked" "Stab (Luftwaffe designation)" - this should be wikilinked or if it doesn't exist, removed;

 Done   Perseus 71 ^talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• • in the Notes and Citations section for page ranges sometimes you use the singular "p." then sometimes "pp." (for instance "Denis and Lepage, (2009) p. 48-50" but then "Denis and Lepage, (2009) pp. 18,19,48–50";

 Done   Perseus 71 ^talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• • in the Notes and Citations section I think there need to be some spaces inserted between the page numbers (e.g. in Citation # 15: "United States War Dept. (1995) p. 15,591" - this looks like it is page number fifteen thousand five hundred and ninety-one). Is it meant to be that, or is it meant to be page fifteen and page five hundred and ninety-one?

 Done   Perseus 71 ^talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Citation # 48 "Mitcham, (2007-b) pp.323", if this is a single page, it should probably just be "p. 323";

 Done   Perseus 71 ^talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• • some of the citations have a comma before the year in brackets, but others don't, (e.g. "Stedman & Chappell (2002) p. 5 " and "Williamson & Andrew (2003) p. 13–15" but then "Denis and Lepage, (2009) pp. 18,19,48–50" and "Ruffner, (1990) pp. 3,6–11, 14";

 Done   Perseus 71 ^talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• • most of the citations have years in brackets, but this one doesn't "Mayer & Taylor, p. 95";

 Done   Perseus 71 ^talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• • in the References section you have listed a source by "Taylor, Alan; Percivale, John and Mayer, Sydney" however, in the Citations it is (I think) listed as "Mayer & Taylor, p. 95", I think the short citation needs to be consistent with the long, so it should be "Taylor, Percivale & Mayer, (1974), p. 95";

 Done   Perseus 71 ^talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• • in the References section, the titles should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles;

 Done   Perseus 71 ^talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• • in the References section, "Bickers" should come before "Boog" alphabetically;

 Done   Perseus 71 ^talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• • in the References section, in the titles the year ranges should have endashes per WP:DASH.

 Done   Perseus 71 ^talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The section "List of Luftwaffe air units" gives the impression that this is more or less complete list of all the air units. However all the Sturzkampfgeschwader, Zerstörergeschwader, Schlachtgeschwader, Transportgeschwader, and some more are missing. I feel that it should either be complete or removed. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I myself was in two minds over those lists as I didn't feel they added much to the core organization. I have removed those lists as a result.   Perseus 71 ^talk 23:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Additional comments: (Sorry I missed these before)
  • (see comment below also) citation # 13 has "Jean-Denis, G.G. Lepage", however other ones such as # 1 have "Denis and Lepage" these should be consistent;

 Done  Perseus 71 ^talk 22:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• • in the References section you have "Jean, Denis; Lepage, G.G" for the author of a work. This is saying that that the surname is Jean, however, in your short citations you have "Denis and Lepage" showing it as if Denis is the surname. From what I can find on Google books it appears that it is actually the name of one person, i.e his first name is Jean-Denis and his surname is "Lepage". If this is so you will need ot change all of the Denis & Lepage citations to just "Lepage". Can you clarify which is the surname please? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done I have changed to just Lepage as the last name for the author. Thanks pointing that out. I had confusion myself when I ran across that name originally.   Perseus 71 ^talk 22:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support

• I have made a few edits (please confirm they haven't misrepresented your intent);

I was following your edits. I think those are valid have no issue.   Perseus 71 ^talk 03:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• The citation check tool reveals multiple references that need to be consolidated (i.e. named refs), can these please be taken care of?

I am afraid I don't know what tool it is or why its reporting so. From my side I have extensively followed WP:refname. So if I am citing same page of a book, the named reference would repeat. Case to the point "Williamson & Andrew, (2003) pp. 3–5" is cited in four places. Is this what the tool is picking up ? If not and there is a different issue, then I'll be happy to correct it.   Perseus 71 ^talk 03:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The citation check tool is part of the edit function. To accesses it click 'edit' at the top of the article, then 'cite', then 'error check', a box will appear, select all 3 check boxes and click 'check' - this will summarize the issues. I think what might have occurred in this case is that you have just used the same name for a ref in a few places - which isn't really an issue (but it 'creates' an error with the check tool). If this is the case then I will strike this issue as it is not important... Anotherclown (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done or so I think. As of now, the only reference it has issue with is "Lepage, (2009) pp. 48–50". I don't know what beef it has with this one. I have it named once and used several times. Rest seem to be fixed. BTW I am using Wiki Beta and hence the Cite Button was not visible on my Edit Toolbar before. Let me know if this fixes the issue ?  Perseus 71 ^talk 18:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes that seems to have done the trick. Moving to support now. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Is it a Luftgau or a Luftgaue, you seem to use both in the same paragraph (or is this the plural and the singular form of the word?);

Luftgaue (Air Districts) is a plural of Luftgau (Air District).   Perseus 71 ^talk 03:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• The following sentence below the table in the 'Luftflotte' section seems like a 'note' more than a paragraph of its own: "By D-Day in June 1944, Luftflotte 3, had units under it, scattered all over France. X. Fliegerkorps was transferred from Greece to Angers, France in March 1944. It acquired the assets of Fliegerführer Atlantik.[26]" Could it perhaps be incorporated into the table with its own cell (minor nitpick I know - just a suggestion)?  Done
• The last paragraph in the 'Gruppe' section is uncited; and  Done
• IMO the aircraft markings section is appropriate for the article and should be kept (no action required).

Overall, this is a very good article and intend to support when these comments are dealt with. Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support I think that this very detailed and well written article meets the A class criteria. I do have some suggestions for further improvements though:
  • As the 'engagements' and 'aircraft flown' sections of the infobox would be overwhelming if they were completely listed, I'd strongly suggest that these sections be left blank. The current 'engagements' section excludes the entire Eastern Front campaign and many other key campaigns and the list of aircraft flown is missing a few important aircraft.

When I was deciding on infobox template, I had researched several articles on air-forces in this regard. Most of the articles do provide both pieces of information. Key thing is, Engagement section focuses only on major conflicts. I have added Easter Front. (Don't know how I forgot. No excuse). As to the aircraft, I have made an honest attempt to cover all Operational aircraft. If I missed any, please do let me know and I will add the same.   Perseus 71 ^talk 03:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• • The 'Air Combat Tactics "Finger-four" formation' seems out of place. I'd suggest that it be placed in the 'Tactical level – Geschwader, Gruppe and Staffel' section Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Good point. Fits in perfectly.   Perseus 71 ^talk 03:48, 26 July 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 03:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Battle of P'ohang-dong

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!^(talk) 21:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment Support: minor nitpicking and confusion

• "Walker chose not to heavily reenforce the area...", aside from the typo, you may want to explain Walker's rank and position in his first appearance in the article.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• You may want to mention the Taebaek Mountains in your terrain description, if possible. This terrain feature had dominated the planning of pretty much every battle in the Korean War up to the stalemate period.
  • Added. —Ed!^(talk) 13:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• "NK 8th Division's 3rd Regiment was nearly destroyed by South Korean forces immediately, forcing its 2nd Regiment to attempt to relieve it, resulting in at least 700 casualties for the North Koreans." Unclear wording, did the 3rd Regiment suffered 700 casualties due to the fighting, or the 2nd Regiment suffered 700 casualties while trying to reach the 3rd Regiment? Jim101 (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 13:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• "this fighting was so heavy that the NK 8th Division was forced to hold its ground a week before trying to advance. Stalled again by South Korean resistance, it was forced to halt again to wait for reinforcements.[30]" I'm a bit confused, how many times did the South Koreans stalled the North Koreans? There was only one fight, but the North Koreans got stalled twice/thrice?
  • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 13:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• "It was apparent to the UN forces that the ROK 3rd Division held the road 20 miles north of P'ohang-dong but that there were no defenses inland in the mountains and North Korean units had penetrated there." I'm guessing you were trying to say that North Koreans penetrated the rear of the ROK 3rd Division. Can you reword and breakdown the sentence a little to reduce confusion?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• "By August 19 the North Korean forces had completely withdrawn from the offensive and into the mountains in retreat." Did you mean "withdrawn from the offensive and retreated into the mountains"?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 13:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to say your Pusan Perimeter project is one heck of an accomplishment. Another question, do you need a new campaign box for the project? Jim101 (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• I appreciate it! Also, what do you mean by a new campaign box? —Ed!^(talk) 13:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Something like Template:Campaignbox Korean War, except for the Battle of Pusan Perimeter...anyway, I support this article. Jim101 (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Embarrassing omission on my part: Uhm, upon further digging, I just caught a major omission in the article content...I have to withdrew my support until this is resolved.

Quote the article Battle of Pusan Perimeter:

In the east, the North Korean army, 89,000 men strong, had advanced into South Korea in six columns, catching the Republic of Korea Army by surprise, resulting in a complete rout. The smaller South Korean army suffered from widespread lack of organization and equipment, and it was unprepared for war.[9] Numerically superior, North Korean forces destroyed isolated resistance from the 38,000 South Korean soldiers on the front before it began moving steadily south.[10] Most of South Korea's forces retreated in the face of the invasion. By June 28, the North Koreans had captured South Korea's capital of Seoul, forcing the government and its shattered forces to retreat further south.[11] Though it was steadily pushed back, South Korean forces increased their resistance further south hoping to delay North Korean units as much as possible. North and South Korean units sparred for control of several cities, inflicting heavy casualties on one another. The Republic of Korea Army forces defended Yongdok fiercely before being forced back. They performed well in the Battle of Andong in repelling North Korean advances.[12]

Given that the P'ohang-dong Battle is located at the Eastern sector of the Korean War, is there a reason why this passage was not incorporated in the background? Jim101 (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I completely forgot about that paragraph, my apologies. I've been trying to keep the concurrent pusan perimeter battles uniform in terms of the background I provide for the battle, but I would agree this entire graph is necessary in the P'ohang-dong article. I have added it to the background section. —Ed!^(talk) 03:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments: (I suddenly find out that I'll be losing internet connection for a week, so I have to get to the point here) The background section may need a weight check on the fact that the P'ohang-dong Battle is located at the Eastern sector, while most of the backgrounds deals with actions on the Korean War Western sector. After going through many Korean War books, the general rule of thumb is that any Korean War battles on the scale of Pusan Perimeter is normally broken into two sectors under semi-independent commands, usually the ROK Army guarding the Eastern sector while the US Army guarding the western sector. While the events on the two sectors influence each other, transportation problems caused by the mountains in central Korean made sure that battles and events in the Eastern sector are often happening independent of the Western sector, and vice versa. Thus a lack of examination on events happening to the east of the 24th Infantry Division during the war opening, particularly the effects of the Yongdok and Andong battles to the entire Korean War and how the northern side of the Pusan Perimeter was set up does not put this battle into proper context.

It is in my opinion that the background material on the battles fought by the 24th Infantry Division needs to be significantly trimmed, due to the fact that this division's action has no direct effect on the North Korean units attacking towards P'ohang-dong. The events that actually led to the P'ohang-dong battle, which are the central mountain and the east coast fighting described at page 101-108 and at page 182-190 in Appleman's book needs to be significantly expanded. Jim101 (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll see what I can do. You'll have to give me a few days, though. —Ed!^(talk) 13:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the US Army background trimmed out sufficiently? —Ed!^(talk) 04:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I did a little rewrite on the background myself to shift the weight a bit further towards ROKs, although I'm bit hazy on whether the Yongdok and Andong battles happened before or after Battle of Taejon. Let me know if it is okay with you. Jim101 (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks fine. —Ed!^(talk) 10:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Change to Support. Jim101 (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Generally very good, I couldn't find very much to pick fault with.
  • no dab links; there are no ext links so they all work!, and alt text is present (no action required);
  • images appear appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • if you can find them, location details for the References should be added (I understand that this is not always possible, and as such it is just a suggestion);
  • there is some inconsistency in your date format, sometimes you have "Month Day" (e.g July 20) and then at other times you have "Day Month" (e.g. 21 July), these should be consistent (I personally prefer Day Month, myself, but it doesn't really matter which format you use so long as it is the same throughout the article);
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 22:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the North Korean advance, this clause might need to be tweaked: "...forcing the NK 12th Division's to delay...". I don't think that the apostrophe and the S are required here as it is not possessing anything, is it? Unless there is a word missing, like "...12th Division's regiments...";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Eastern Corridor section, "major north-south road" should have an endash instead of a hyphen because it is implying connectivity per WP:DASH (i.e. it should be "major north–south road");
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • should "Eastern Corridor" be capitalised as it is? Unless it is a proper noun, it should be "Eastern corridor" in the title;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • same as above for the "UN Counteroffensive" heading - is this a proper noun? If not, it should be "UN counteroffensive". AustralianRupert (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed. I think I have fixed everything I can. —Ed!^(talk) 22:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Support

• I reviewed this article at GA and have re-read it since. IMO this article now meets the A class criteria fol recent edits and suggestions by Ed, Jim and Rupert;
• Ed, I have made a few tweaks, including a bit of a rewrite on the lead - please take a look to ensure you are happy with these and revert/change if required; and
• Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 03:47, 27 July 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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 17:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

SMS Westfalen

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Yet another German battleship, this was one of the first dreadnoughts built by the German navy. I wrote this in May and it passed GA review last month. Dank has copy-edited the article as well. I appreciate the time all reviewers take in checking the article against the A-class criteria. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: just a quick technical review to get the ACR started (I will come back later after reading the article a couple of times):
  • there are two dab links according to the tools that need fixing: [19]
  • no external links, so none are broken (no action required);
  • images have alt text (no action required);
  • images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required). AustralianRupert (talk) 10:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I've fixed the two dabs. Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the lead two paragraphs in a row begin with "The ship", which seems a little repetitive;
    • Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • not sure if this is important, but as a lay person I couldn't help but wonder why a hegagonal configuration of Westfalen's guns was "unusual";
    • I added a note on this. Parsecboy (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • what is a "fleet advance"?
    • It's just a sortie by the fleet. Parsecboy (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "In late March the ship went into drydock for..." What year is this? Is it 1915?
    • Yeah. Parsecboy (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Battle of the Gulf of Riga section, "In August, the German fleet attempted ..." I think this should be "August 1915" to make it clear to the readers;
    • Alright. Parsecboy (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "promoted to Vice Admiral" I think should be "promoted to vice admiral" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms
    • Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Battle of the Gulf of Riga section sometimes you have a capital "Gulf" and then at other times a lower case "gulf". For example: "...destroy the Russian naval forces in the Gulf" and then "...the northern entrance to the gulf". I think they should all be capitalised as it is, in this case, a proper noun;
    • Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Fate section, perhaps a little bit of an explaination could be given as to why the majority of the High Seas Fleet was interned in Scapa Flow. Perhaps the addition of this clause after the first sentence might help: "...interned in Scapa Flow, under the terms of the Armistice agreement."
    • Added. Parsecboy (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References section some of the ISBNs have hyphens and some don't. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support: my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  Agreed with all your comments and that's very helpful, you make me a better copyeditor, Rupert. - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  Cheers, no worries at all. I'm very impressed with your copy editing contributions, Dank. We don't have many editors who are keen to do this sort of work, but it is very necessary and appreciated. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you, much appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 23:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• You've just added Note 2 and you're probably working on this anyway, but it needs a ref. I finally have Gröner, and that information isn't on pp. 23-24. I'll be happy to look through my library for this information if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I added the relevant page numbers from Conway's. Parsecboy (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, and I like the format. Ick ... $125 new or used on Amazon, I'll pass. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
      • What, for Conway's? That's ridiculous, I paid like $50-60 when I got it. But then that was a couple of years ago now. Parsecboy (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Yep. Conway's 1922-46 was cheaper, I've got that. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Don't know if this pushes it into your budget, but I found a couple copies on alibris.com for around $85 here. Parsecboy (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
            • Thanks much Nate, they had one for $50 plus shipping and tax, it's on the way. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Staff, p. 26 says she joined "I Squadron" on 3 May and became the flagship on 5 May. I don't know if other sources contradict this. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
    • The article now says, "... until 3 May. Two days later Westfalen was transferred to the I Battle Squadron of the High Seas Fleet." You're saying she was transferred 5 May; Staff says 3 May. - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Oh, I see. I don't have Staff in front of me, so feel free to change it. Parsecboy (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• My only quibbles are was she coal or oil fired? And Helsinki should probably be used throughout rather than Helsingfors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I added a line on the boilers, but as for Helsingfors/Helsinki, wasn't the city known by the former during this period? That's how Staff referred to the city, and so does Paul Halpern in his account of the operation. Parsecboy (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, Helsingfors was the name during WWI. I got dinged for it on one of my Russian BB articles by somebody who referenced some obscure bit about names in the MOS so it might be worth checking.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Added "(now Helsinki)" at the first occurrence. - Dank (push to talk) 14:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support
Only a couple of points from me:

• The citation check tool reports one instance of multiple refs containing the same content (Staff, p. 19);, and  Done
• What caused the damage to Westfalen's boiler?

Overall a very good article and I intend to support. Anotherclown (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Staff is in general quite dense, and several articles that use it as a reference cite it many times from the same page ... did that answer the question AC? - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

He meant this; there were two citations to the page that weren't merged with the "ref name=" parameter. Parsecboy (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep thats it, apologies for being indistinct! Anotherclown (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, as for the damage to Westfalen's boilers, Staff doesn't say. I'd assume mechanical problems. Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Moving to support now, good work. Anotherclown (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Support per usual disclaimer and per my comments in the edit history. Also:

• "Westfalen stood off Reval where she organized the invasion force" is unclear, and I'm not sure what to do with it.
• Nate, sometimes you italicize en route and sometimes not. I don't have a preference, but consistency would be good. merriam-webster.com supports italics; Webster's NWD and AP are silent. As I recall, it's usually not italicized. - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean about the italics; I saw only one "en route" in this article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
    • See for instance SMS König#Operations in the North Sea ... was that your en route? - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Oh, I was referring just to this article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:01, 23 July 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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 13:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

ARA Moreno

Nominator(s): —Ed (talk • majestic titan)

Moreno was a product of the early 1900s South American naval arms race, a topic which I need to write an article on. That and the intrigue surrounding her construction are the most interesting parts of the article (I believe Argentina should have sold Rivadavia and Moreno, what do you think?) Virtually all of Moreno's active life was spent on diplomatic visits and training cruises, barring a 1924–25 modernization in the United States, and she was scrapped in 1956. Any and all comments are welcome and appreciated. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments This is a strong article, but I think that it needs a bit more polishing to reach A class:
  • The detailed material on the diplomatic and political maneuvering concerning the ships probably belongs in the article on the class rather than the articles on the individual ships
    • I tried to include a summary of it; see User:The ed17/Sandbox/Rivadavia class battleship for all the rest. It's a lot. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
      • That is a lot of material, and should do justice to the topic (I read through lots of similar material as part of developing the Dutch 1913 battleship proposal article!) I think that it could be trimmed a bit more here though - a paragraph at most seems appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The prose needs a copy edit. Some examples:
    • "She was named after Mariano Moreno, a key member of the Primera Junta, and she was the second of two Rivadavia-class battleships; her sister was Rivadavia Moreno was launched on 23 September 1911 and completed in March 1915." - should be two sentences, and I'm suspect that this is too much information on her sister for the lead
    • "This angered the American government, as the ships had been built with the latest advances in American warship technology" - was the US Government upset about its technology being unappreciated (as is implied by the text) or was it concerned about this being transferred to other countries
    • "The Argentine government, bolstered by socialist gains in the legislature, refused to back down. No less than three bills proposing the sale of the battleships were introduced in May 1914, but all were defeated by late June." - these two sentences seem to contradict each other. I presume what they mean is that the Government was determined to sell the ships, but could never get the numbers to do so in the legislature.

      I made some edits; does this one work for both of you? "The Argentine government, bolstered by socialist gains in the legislature, supported several bills introduced in the legislature in May 1914 proposing the sale of the battleships, but all were defeated by late June." - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

      • • While I don't know how the Argentine government operated now or in 1914, I imagine that the government introduced bills rather than merely "supported" them and the three bills were introduced successively rather than simultaneously. Nick-D (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
          • Schenia isn't specific here, but three bills proposed in May and defeated by June? Even with the less bureaucracy of those times, that seems rather quick... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
            • Does Schenia say who or what office introduced the bills? - Dank (push to talk) 12:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
              • Unless stated elsewhere, it's reasonable to assume that the government introduced the bills (as is standard for parliamentary-type government structures). Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Oops, I meant Livermore, and he doesn't. "Recent elections in Argentina had resulted in socialist gains, and the naval attache reported a strong sentiment in congress in favor of selling the ships and using the money to open more schools. The question was fought out at the session of the chamber of deputies in May and was not decided until after a prolonged and bitter struggle. [...] Three bills favoring the sale of the dreadnoughts were introduced and debated in secret session. The forces of economy and retrenchment were led by a distinguished statesman, Senor Drago, but in the end the naval party triumphed. On June 22 Lorillard reported that the bills had been defeated, and the charge warned against further delay in turning the vessels over to the Argentine republic." (Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 46). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
    • "The beginning of the First World War reopened these rumors" - suggest "the" rather than "these" as the rumours haven't been referred to in the para
    • "The German and British ambassadors both complained to the United States' Department of State" - were these the ambassadors to the US or Argentina?
    • "For the United States, this was an unheard-of feature, as alcohol had been banned on US Navy ships" - as alcohol was served on Royal Navy vessels this probably wasn't "unheard of" to Americans with an interest in naval matters
    • "Moreno was forced to put in at Rockland, Maine—where many of the observers on board were left to be brought back by train to Camden—before proceeding to the Fore River Shipyard in Massachusetts for repairs. Fore River was utilized because that company built the engines that were installed in the ship." - the second sentence here is a bit awkward
    • "Moreno was given to waiting Argentine sailors" - I presume you mean she was delivered to the government? The current text suggests she was a present to the impatient sailors ;)
    • "She was immediately assigned to the Argentine Navy's First Division, based out the major naval base of Puerto Belgrano, where she remained until 1923, when she was put into the reserve fleet." - suggest changing this to two sentances
    • "As Argentina remained neutral in the war, Moreno was utilized little" - this is awkward and unclear. If Argentina stayed out of the war, how was she used at all? Moreover, did she stay in port during this period?

      I tried to respond to the other points, Nick and Ed, but I don't know what to do with this one; I don't know what the ship did during the war. - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

      • No one else is real specific either. To me, it implies that she saw a little service in patrolling or something, but it doesn't state that explicitly. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

  • "13 short tons (12 long tons; 12 t) of tallow were needed to grease the slipways for the launch." - probably not all that important ;)
  • Are there any specialist works on the Argentine Navy which could be consulted? The Spanish-language Wikipedia references a book entitled Battleships and Cruisers of Argentina. which seems worth consulting prior to a FAC, if at all possible. Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
    • No, as I cannot read Spanish. :) I'm not planning on bringing it to FAC without those; I'm hoping DPdH can help with that, but he hasn't responded to me as of yet. Thanks for the review, Nick. My articles tend to get a lot better after you've looked them over. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let me know if/when the new material has been worked in and I'll be happy to look it over. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - just to help the closing coordinator, that comment is relevant to a FAC and not this ACR. Thanks for your kind comment Ed - I'd say the same about your reviews. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute, the article on es.wiki is 3 short paragraphs, with no refs, just a bibliography ... why do we think that Spanish-language book might be important? Because of the title? - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There seems to be no reason to assume that the es.wiki article is in any sense 'complete' and this appears to be only book covering this topic in detail I could find so it's worth consulting in order to ensure that FA criterion 1(c) is met. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, there's a copy of the book available at Notre Dame: [20]. Parsecboy (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, User talk:DPdH added the book as a ref to another article and I've left a message for them, though they may not be around. If they don't respond, I'll get it through ILL. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support My above comments are now addressed - great work Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Comments Just a couple to start of with (sorry, I'd meant to be more thorough, but I'm falling asleep here). I will come back tomorrow:
  • No dab links, ext links all work (no action required);
  • image(s) are appropriately licenced IMO (no action required);
  • the image could have alt text added to it (suggestion);
  • in the lead "This followed a series of mishaps" - should this be: "This was followed by a series of mishaps"? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • there was an italics issue, but I've rectified this, other than that I couldn't really find anything that I could think of that needed fixing. Looks pretty good to me, although, as I've said before I don't know that much about ships. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
    • • Thanks for the review and fix! I've copyedited that part of the lead, feel free to take a look —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I put in an ILL order yesterday on Acorazados y cruceros de la armada argentina, 1881-1992, but the closest copy is at Notre Dame (535 miles away), and my library says they don't usually do ILLs outside the Southeast ... but they're going to try to get it anyway. - Dank (push to talk) 12:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Book just arrived from Notre Dame yesterday via ILL, I've shared the relevant material with Ed. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Link to Swiftsure class battleship in the line about the Chilean battleships being purchased, and whatever cruiser class it was that Argentina was attempting to acquire.
  • Do you know the details of the refit in the mid 1920s?
  • In the lead: "This was followed by a series of engine problems" seems out of place. What is the "this" to which is being referred? The delivery to Argentina? Also, I prefer at least two paragraphs in the lead, could you split the paragraph in two? Also, it bears mentioning in the lead that the ship was ordered in response to Brazilian naval expansion and border disputes.
  • This is no biggie, but are there any other pictures that could be used in the article?
• All in all, an excellent article, Ed. I look forward to supporting it for A-class. Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Links added, lead tweaked and fixed, refit will have to wait for tomorrow (aka early tomorrow morning). Pictures are a negative until the LOC emails me back, and if they give me a negative, then my answer will still be negative. ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I'd like to see a brief written description of the ship.
• No armor section in the infobox
• Needs a conversion for the shp in the infobox--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Second two done. I don't normally add a written description in my individual ship articles; I leave that to the class articles... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
    • The problem with that is that it makes everything in the infobox uncited which is a real problem. It's worth a paragraph or two, IMO, to get past that issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support pending the addition of the above comments. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• "... both were delivered and kept. When Moreno was completed, ... Moreno was finally delivered ...": something in there isn't working for me; chronological order would help. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• In the last paragraph, does Whitley really mention November 1939 and then imply that sometime later, WWII broke out in Europe? Sounds odd. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Support per usual disclaimer. I've done a second copyedit, and comments are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 24 July 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 06:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ernest Augustus I of Hanover

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I think it meets the standard. Ernest, in addition to being a king and earlier a politician, had a military career of forty years, though for most of that he, as a royal duke, sat on the sidelines and interfered with politics. Ernest is an interesting character, he was called the most unpopular man in England, was rumoured to have murdered his valet, had a son by his sister, and supposedly planned to kill Princess Victoria so he could take the British throne for himself. Yet he seems to have done a good job as king. A lot of contradictions here. Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - love the nomming statement
  • "this was done to limit the influence the already-dissipated George, Prince of Wales, would have over his younger brothers." -- what does "already dissipated" mean?
  • "King Ernest convened a panel of jurists, who upheld his position that the constitution was void for failure to obtain the consent of the heir presumptive." -- do your sources mention if this was a partial or impartial jury? Just curious.
• I've got nothing more; great article. I think you've made good distinctions between his time in Britain (with all the rumors) and his time as king (which, aside from the constitution stuff, was good). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll look for a better phrasing, but the Prince of Wales was drinking, whoring, running up huge debts, and consorting with the Whigs, none of which the King liked. Sources really don't say on the panel, but it would have taken a pretty brave judge to go against the King. Most biographers think the King was right, this was a complicated case and the end of a power struggle that started when it became clear that Ernest was going to be King there. Willis goes into the greatest detail, and no one looks particularly good. Too much for summary style, though. You can't go up against the Brothers Grimm and win, not without depriving them of paper!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. That makes sense when you say it like that, but "already dissipated" is a little undefined to me. :) @the other point, alright, sounds good. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• comment

First off, this is a very well written article. I don't really have any concerns other than: it the sentence Both he and Queen Frederica rest in a mausoleum in the Herrenhausen Gardens. supported by citation number 112? If not then I think that it will need a source. Other than that, I'm happy to support.--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 00:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation to the Gardens' website added. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Support--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 01:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • no dab links, ext links all work (no action required);
  • alt text could be added to the images, but this is just a suggestion only;
  • in the Bibliography section, can OCLC numbers be added to the sources that are too old for ISBNs? (You can find these by looking the book up on World cat here: [21]);
  • in the Bibliography section, if possible can location of publication be added? (I understand that this is not always available, so it is no major drama if you can't find them);
  • in the Bibliography section the title of the Wilkinson source needs to be tweaked for capitalisation. Per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles it should be "Reminiscences of the Court and Times of King Ernest of Hanover, Volume 1". AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. I am waiting for the alt text dust to settle, but if people want them, I'll add them. I just get sick of the arguments about describing (among other things) people's hair and dress. Were there substantive comments as well? I will be home Monday and will implement these changes then.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Those things are now done, excluding the alt text.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support: looks good, I couldn't find anything substantive to pick fault with. The work by Horst is still missing an ISBN, though, is this available? This is only a minor point, so I'm okay with supporting regardless. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Horst lacks an ISBN, there is an inline comment explaining this.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 14 July 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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 11:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

HMS Indefatigable (1909)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I've further cleaned up the article and I'm trying to get it ready for a FAC for OMT.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments just a few to get the review started (sorry, I will come back later and do a more thorough review):
  • there are no dab links, ext links all work (no action required);
  • images should be okay for A class, but for FAC you might want to consider whether the "life of author + 70 years" licence is appropriate on the sketch from Brassey's (it says author not identified, so we can’t reasonably make a judgement of when he/she died, thus making it not possible to determine when it would be PD);
    • Copyright is OK since it was published in 1923. Individual artist is irrelevant since it was a work for hire and Brassey's owns the copyright, which has expired.
      • Understood, however, what I'm saying is that its licence is relying upon the death of an author that it states is "not identified" (thus it is not possible to determine that they died 70 years ago). Is there a licence that could be added that relies on the fact of its publication prior to 1923 (e.g. maybe {{PD-1923}}), rather than {{PD-Old}} which relies on the death of its author when said author is not identified? AustralianRupert (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Ah, now I understand. I've swapped out the image for one from the 1915 Brassey's which has no copyright issues at all. The original image used that odd , and inappropriate, license because the image was actually still in copyright as it was a work for hire and it wasn't published _before_ 1923, but rather in 1923.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
          • Looks good to me now. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • alt text could be added to the images (this is a suggestion, not a requirement);
  • can publisher information be added to citation # 8 ("British 12 pdr")?
    • Certainly.
  • all of the ISBNs in the References section have hyphens except one, could you add these in, or remove the others for consistency (this is not a major drama if you can't);
    • Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • in the second paragraph of the Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau section there is a quotation mark sitting out of place (I think), after this sentence "...clear orders to "chase Goeben" which had passed Cape Matapan on the 7th steering north-east." Milne..." (the problem is the quotation mark before Milne). AustralianRupert (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • In the second paragraph of the Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau section, should "Goeben" be in italics in this sentence: "...he set sail for Cape Matapan, where Goeben had been spotted...";
    • Another good catch.
  • In the second paragraph (same as above) I suggest breaking up this sentence: "At 2:30 p.m. he received an incorrect signal from the Admiralty stating that Britain was at war with Austria-Hungary, war would not be declared until 12 August, and the order was countermanded four hours later, but Milne followed his standing orders to guard the Adriatic against an Austrian breakout attempt, rather than hunt for Goeben". I suggest adding a full stop after "at war with Austria-Hungary" and then starting a new sentence with: "War would not be declared, however, until...";
    • Good idea.
  • In the last paragraph (beginning On 3 November 1914) the contraction "didn't" should probably be changed to "did not" to make it sound more encyclopedic (...by Britain agaisnt the Ottoman Empire which didn't...);
    • Fixed
  • There is another instance of the use of the word "didn't" in the first paragraph of the Battle of Jutland section ("...but Beatty's ships didn't spot...");
    • Fixed
  • In the Battle of Jutland section you could link the word "astern" to the Glossary of nautical terms as some readers might not know what it means (same with amidships, etc.);
    • Always a hard call to judge how much vocabulary readers know.
  • In the Battle of Jutland section some of your times do not state whether it is am or pm;
    • Only the first time is given am or pm; any change would be noted.
      • No dramas, just wanted to clarify if it was deliberate or an oversight. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • In this sentence you use the word "while" twice in close proximity, "...aimed at Von der Tann while New Zealand targeted at Moltke while remaining unengaged herself" (perhaps it could be reworded slighty?);
    • Done
  • In the final sentence of the Battle of Jutland section, you have "Von der Tann only fired 52 28 cm...". In this case it might be clearer for the reader's understanding (I did a double take when reading it) to spell out 52 as "fifty-two" because of the 28 cm beside it (the MOS does allow this, I believe). AustralianRupert (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree, but the MOS values consistency over readability, but done regardless.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support

• Initial look at the article shows me that the lede could be a tad longer, although that's not major
  • Broken out into two paras.
• The lede and inital section contains a lot of naval jargon that is almost impenetrable to me. To take the lede, what was Invincible, and who built it? And what's significant of it being enlarged for those turrets? When was she commissioned, and what did she do before the war began? The lede reads like it was written purely for OMT and naval readers, and really isn't reader-friendly for anyone else.
  • Rephrased the lead to reference the Invincible-class BCs. How is the significance of the extra length not explained? I don't understand what the issue is. She was commissioned before WWI and she did nothing of significance before the start of the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I still think her commissioning date should be in the lede, but fair enough on the rest of the comment. Skinny87 (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I've added a sentence to the lede that provides her dates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• Needs a lot more background in the 'Description'. I know very little of the intricacies of pre-WWI British naval development, and giving me the statement 'Indefatigable was ordered as the lone battlecruiser of the 1908–9 programme' just makes me more confused. What programme? What was the impetus behind it being built? Who ordered it - I assume the British government? Skinny87 (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • All that is addressed in the class article and Royal Navy is linked already.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, a reader shouldn't have to go to another article to understand the background to this article. It needn't be much, just a paragraph, or even a couple of sentences. But at the moment a reader unfamiliar with the subject is effectively being thrown into the deepend with no context as to why the vessel was built. Skinny87 (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm uncertain how to respond to this. The simple truth was that Jackie Fisher wanted more battlecruisers and one was all he could push past the Government of the day. There was no system of Staff Requirements, etc., back then; the Lords of the Admiralty simply decided what they wanted and negotiated with the Government to see what they'd accept.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
        • I hate to seem stubborn about this, but surely something can be said. What about background to the Naval Plan, or details on exactly what you just said about Fisher? I mean, it shouldn't be make-work for the sake of writing something, but at the moment there really is no context or explanation of why it was built. Skinny87 (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
          • Added a couple of sentences on the political situation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
            • That looks great, now supporting. Skinny87 (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I can't tell whether this is saying she had no more armor or a little more armor: "Essentially this was a slightly enlarged Invincible with a revised protection arrangement, a larger design with more armour and better underwater protection having been rejected for reasons of cost." - Dank (push to talk) 03:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I changed the comma to a semi-colon to better separate the two events.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• I think I'd prefer a red or blue link on BVIII*. - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not prepared to start writing articles, even stubs, on the various marks of British turrets. The implications of the exact turret type are buried in discussed in the class article where all that stuff dealt with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Which sounds better, 'X' barbette or barbette 'X'? - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • 'X' barbette is normally how they're referred to in the literature. Same with turret.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• "Low-order explosive" seems to be an overloaded term; I'm finding meanings of low explosive, "propellant", and low order-of-magnitude around the web ... a link or explanation would be nice. - Dank (push to talk) 03:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Added Deflagration as a synonym for low-order explosion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• I'm assuming that a 9-foot rangefinder is 9 feet long? Are they generally characterized by length, by model or by maximum range? - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes. Length is the most important characteristic, followed by type or model, as more length usually means better resolution and range.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• I don't agree that it's going to be immediately obvious to our readers what "half-sister" (ship) means; rather than defining the term (since it's not used much), it would probably be better just to write out what you mean. - Dank (push to talk) 16:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I think that half-sister, with a link to sister ship added, quite elegantly describes the relationship between the ships in that they're closely related, but not identical.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• I avoid image issues like the plague that they are, but you've got one photograph where you can barely see the ship, and one sketch. I think people might grumble at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  Even though we've used it before, I don't think File:Jutland1916.jpg would be out of place. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Done, but I'm not impressed with the results. Looks rather overcrowded to my eyes. What do y'all think? Not willing to dump the photo of her sinking despite its low quality. I could add pictures of her opponents like Goeben or of her weapons mounted on other ships if you'd prefer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm crap on image issues. Let's do whatever you guys think will get through FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• "blew up at about 4:03 when her magazines exploded": Does Tarrant give us a little more? I'm looking for something like "her magazines exploded and a conflagration swept the ship" or "the ship buckled" or "the ship was torn apart". "blew up" is a little informal and also doesn't really tell me what happened. - Dank (push to talk) 21:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Added a rather sensationalistic sentence describing what she looked like exploding.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Ooh, I want in on the movie rights. - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Another solid job, and I can support per the usual disclaimer when these issues are tackled. - Dank (push to talk) 21:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Now Supporting. - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments.
  • No mention of the armoured spotting and signal tower behind the conning tower, unique to Indefatigable. (Brooks. Mast and Funnel Question. p. 43.)
    • There's a brief mention in Roberts, but he doesn't say much other than it was generally inferior to the later installations in terms of visibility, protection and access to the captain/admiral. Since I don't have that article, nor am I going to be able to get the article shortly, feel free to add a little bit about that to the article. Alternatively, I'd happily take a scan and write it up myself.
  • No mention of the fact that at Jutland the captain (C. F. Sowerby) survived but wasn't saved. (Campbell. p. 61.) --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 17:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
    • My copy of Campbell is in storage, can you elaborate on why he wasn't rescued? Did he refuse rescue?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I looked it up and added the relevant info. Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 9 July 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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 10:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

SMS Baden (1915)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

The last German battleship completed by the Imperial Navy, it was also the only ship prevented from sinking at Scapa Flow. The British used it for gunnery trials before sinking her in 1921. Thanks in advance to all reviewers who take the time to evaluate the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments This article is in good shape, but is lacking details:
  • Did the German navy really own and manage its own shipyards? This it what's implied by "she was the last battleship completed by the Kaiserliche Marine"
    • Yes, there was the Kaiserliche Werft Wilhelmshaven, Kaiserliche Werft Danzig, and Kaiserliche Werft Kiel, though the ship was built at the Schichau-Werke. Would changing "by" to "for" clear that up?
  • There's almost nothing specifically about this ship in the 'Advance of 23 April 1918', 'Wilhelmshaven Mutiny' sections - at very least these need to be greatly trimmed to shorter summaries
    • I trimmed some details from both sections, but some of it can't be removed. For instance, the whole first paragraph of the 23 April section isn't about the ship, but it's necessary to set up why the fleet put to sea. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Where was Baden stationed when the High Seas fleet wasn't at sea?
    • I haven't seen anything about this yet, but this book is going to be released on the 22nd, and it should have that information in it (based on the first volume of the pair). Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Nothing in the book about where the ship was based. When the ship was in the North Sea it would have been either Wilhelmshaven or Cuxhaven, but I haven't seen anything specifically about where III Squadron spent most of its time. Parsecboy (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • When did she arrive at Invergordon? (and why was she sent there?)
    • I haven't seen a date (or even month) for the arrival, the article in Warship 2007 is the only thing I've seen that discusses the post-Scapa fate of the ship, and it doesn't have a date. As for why, Invergordon was a major naval base with better facilities than Scapa or Rosyth. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • How did the British acquire the legal right to pull Baden apart and then use her for target practice? - did they receive the ship under the peace treaty?
    • Not specifically, but Article 184 renounces Germany's ownership of the vessel, and since the ship was in Britain's possession, and as Honoré de Balzac would say, possession is nine tenths of the law. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Footnotes 1 and 5 need references
    • Do I really need a reference for the definition of Ersatz? That the ship was a replacement for the old Worth is also cited in the prose. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit surprised that File:Salvage at Scapa Flow.jpg isn't used Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    • That image is quite small and hard to make out. Hopefully Staff's book will have that image in it so I can scan and overwrite the current version. I did add File:SMS Baden towed from Scapa.jpg, which, though also small and grainy, at least has the virtues of being more of a dramatic shot. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
      • The book doesn't have the same photo. Parsecboy (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • no dab links (no action required);
  • no issues with ext links (no action required);
  • images seem appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • only one of the images appears to have alt text, could it be added to the others? (note, this is a suggestion, not a requirement);
    • Added. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • is "Wilhelmshaven Mutiny" a proper noun, or an improper noun? The article itself seems to treat it as an improper noun (hence mutiny is not capitalised), thus please consider whether or not you should capitalise Mutiny in the heading;
    • Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • some of the ISBNs in the References section have hyphens but others don't;
    • Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • the year ranges in the titles in the References sections should have endashes, e.g. Herwig, The NY Times, Schwartz and Weir;
    • Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • In the short notes you have "Preston", but shouldn't this actually be "Schleihauf", as the author who is contributing a chapter in the Preston work? AustralianRupert (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'm not sure why I had done it that way in the first place. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• I don't like use of standard displacement and full combat load, although I understand that you may have had some objections during earlier FACs to the proper terminology. Deep load is defined in the displacement article, IIRC.
  • I'm not quite clear what you mean. Are you unhappy with the word choice (i.e., "standard" displacement was standardized at the WNC and thus anachronistic?) Can you clarify for me please? Parsecboy (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, the anachronism bugs me, although normal load raises its own questions.
      • How about this solution? That avoids "standard" displacement and also explains a bit for the average reader. Parsecboy (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
        • That works.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• Provide conversions for the shp figures in the main body.
  • Done. Parsecboy (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• Although implied that Baden sailed in the Advance paragraph, it's probably best to explicitly mention it.
  • Done. Parsecboy (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• pull it aground? Who did the pulling? I rather think that you meant to say "ran it aground".
  • Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• Gunnery training or tests?
  • Where are you talking about? Parsecboy (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
    • This bit: In January 1921 the first round of gunnery training was ordered. The gunners at HMS Excellent fired the new armor-piercing (AP) shells that had been introduced after the Battle of Jutland. This round of tests was used to determine the most efficient ratio of explosives in the detonator caps; the shells fired at Jutland had a tendency to fragment when striking heavy armor rather than penetrate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that should be "tests" or similar. I've fixed that. Parsecboy (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• Link monitor for those unfamiliar with the ship type.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Parsecboy (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm short on time; I'm going to copyedit for MOS and style things that might be a problem at FAC, and I'd appreciate it if someone else can fix the obvious stuff like missing periods and weird dates.
• Comments On Kaiserliche Marine vs. German Imperial Navy ... the English term seemed to predominate in English sources, does anyone know different? - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Oppose. There's too much to fix here, sorry ... no period at the end of the first paragraph, I fixed the misspelled "in", etc. What I'm really hoping is that someone other than Parsecboy will step up and fix this; I think it hurts our output when we make writers think that they're supposed to be copyediting their own stuff. That's not generally required by the publishing industry, because ideally, you want good writers to spend their time researching and writing, not obsessing over details, it's not efficient. That's why I've been doing some copyediting at A-class reviews, but for a couple of months at least, I'm only going to have time to do it for the articles where someone has already gone through fixing the obvious problems, like missing periods and misspellings. I'm opposing only because an article shouldn't be promoted with obvious punctuation and spelling errors, with no slap intended at Parsecboy at all, he's a great and productive writer. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Just to note, meine Frau, who is quite good at these things, is going to have a look at the article sometime in the next few days; she's helped in the past, though usually in a more "behind the scenes" manner. And no offense taken, Dank, I know you mean well. Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Looks like good stuff ... you're welcome to jump in any time, Parsecgirl. Also, the Guild of Copy Editors is going to be running a contest during July, I think I'll hop over and ask for help. - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• "almost grounded, ... though no major damage was done" sounds better to my non-nautical ear than "slightly grounded", but it's your call. - Dank (push to talk) 00:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Please track down the meter/metre inconsistencies. - Dank (push to talk) 00:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• "the commander in chief of the fleet, Admiral Reinhard Scheer" doesn't sound quite right to me but you guys know better than I what you want to do with titles. If you keep it, it needs a comma after Scheer. - Dank (push to talk) 00:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Hm wait, it doesn't work to say that and then "... Reinhard Scheer—the Grand Admiral (Großadmiral) of the fleet—intended ..." four lines later, unless you say something like "newly appointed" to contrast, and even then I'd feel confused; I'd want to know if that was a promotion or demotion and what it meant if it's mentioned. Would it work for you to stick with just "Admiral" one place or the other? - Dank (push to talk) 02:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• If the "Schwartz48" ref from SMS Helgoland covers the point that the red flag was the red flag of the socialists, I'd prefer to see the ref and "of the Socialists" added. - Dank (push to talk) 02:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• This seems like it could be more concise, but I'm afraid if I cut something I'll alter the meaning: "After the ship arrived in Invergordon, Baden was carefully examined by Royal Navy technicians. Naval engineers inspected the hull, including the screws, bilge keels, and rudders, to determine the water resistance of the hull form. The ship was found to have been approximately as efficient as the British Royal Sovereign-class battleships. The ship's armor system was extensively investigated ..." - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Okay, now we're looking good; thanks for the work, Anotherclown, and I can support per the usual disclaimer after these issues are tackled. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks for the edits ... now supporting, although of course further edits by Parsecgirl or anyone else are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

*CommentsSupport

• • I've had a bit of a chop at copy editing some parts, so please review my changes and revert or tweak as required;
    • Your changes look fine to me. Parsecboy (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • You mention in the lead that: Baden "...was the last battleship completed for the Kaiserliche Marine; two of her sisters—Sachsen and Württemberg—were incomplete when the war ended." I don't see this in the body of the article anywhere, nor is it referenced;
    • This has now been added to the body. Parsecboy (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Its a minor gripe but I think there may be a little overuse of headings, even if you deleted the 'Gunnery target' subheading and just made that part of the 'British service' heading that might be an improvement (just a suggestion though and I won't oppose on this basis);
    • I removed the "Gunnery target" header. My main concern in using headings is to avoid walls of text by subdividing as I see necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree entirely. Looks fine to me now. Anotherclown (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Overall, a good article which I am happy to support once a final copy edit is done, per Dank's comments. Anotherclown (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Have struck most of my comments now, just waiting for that copy edit. BTW Nate you're lucky, my wife hates Wiki... in fact I have to deploy just to use it in peace now (when the welfare computers are working that is)! Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Good work, looks like everything has been taken care of. Changing to support. Anotherclown (talk) 02:15, 27 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.

---

Wehrmacht forces for the Ardennes Offensive

Promoted by The ed17 [22]

Nominator(s): Catalan (talk)

After a very long hiatus from Wikipedia (and one I intend to continue to one degree or another), I want to re-submit this article to an A-class review. My intention is to take this article all the way through to Featured Article candidacy. The prior review can be found here. The major issue, as brought up by Nick-D, was with guideline A4. I took the liberty to break some of the paragraphs up, and I did some minor copyedit work. Also, I have yet to incorporate Belhalla's suggestions, although this will be done in the coming minutes.

Thank you for your time. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm going to unbold "Wehrmacht forces for the Ardennes Offensive" per WP:LEAD's recommendations on descriptive titles, and because that's my best guess for what they'll want at FAC, but feel free to revert, some people would bold it. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• I did some editing to the lead, but I'm not really comfortable copyediting the rest of the article because I don't know much about the subject. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 03:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support My comments from the previous ACR are now addressed, and I think that this meets the criteria - great work. I'd suggest working in a (prominent) link to Battle of the Bulge order of battle though. You could also add either or both of the two relevant maps from the US Army official history (which is public domain) - they're here and here and show German unit boundaries and the relevant major terrain features (both maps are also used in the Battle of the Bulge article so they don't need to be uploaded). Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. One of the maps (the larger one) was added, replacing the photographs of the Tiger II and Van der Heydte, and I added a link to the order of battle as a 'see also'. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• This isn't quite what I expected, what's your intent for this article?
• Forty is unreliable regarding a lot of German, especially Waffen-SS, unit names. Cross reference them with the OB list which is accurate on first viewing. Dupuy is also good for that sort of thing. I'm also leery of Cross; I'd want to validate his figures for German AFV totals. Check Dupuy for those numbers as well. The best book for that is Nevenkin's Fire Brigades that I'm aware of, but I understand it might be a bit hard to get for you at this point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I wrote this article in the beginning of last year (2009), and my intention was to write a similar one for the Western Allies, and then work on the order of battle page (as a general overview of both sides' forces, with each of the detailed articles being main articles for the respective sides). It was all part of a big plan to work on all the Battle of the Bulge related articles. I'm no longer interested in carrying it that far, and just want to see how far this article can go (the original intention was to see if I could get back interested in Wikipedia).

Comparing my article with the order of battle, all the names seem fine (which is not shocking, knowing that Forty's book is largely a consolidation of research conducted by other authors—Forty does little scholarship of his own in this book). It is not as detailed, but I'm sure that's expected (in large part, this is why I wanted to tie it in with the order of battle and why I link to the order of battle).

Well, I can tell you that there was never a 3rd SS Panzer Grenadier Battalion, nor a 560th SS Heavy Panzer Battalion. It's also worth noting that Pz-Lehr, 1st and 12th SS-Pz Divisions were missing a full battalion from their panzer regiments which is why some of the independent units were attached in their place.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Cross, the claim in question I'm guessing is, "Some lacked winter clothing, and standard panzer divisions could count on only 100 tanks apiece." Just to clarify, Cross is not talking about Waffen-SS Panzer divisions. As far as I know, Dupuy doesn't provide this figure. He writes, however, "Several of the units committed to the offensive went into action without their full complement, and parts of other divisions (including both the 2nd SS and 9th SS Panzer) had only been in position for a matter of hours when the offensive began." He later writes, "Even with their b est efforts, the Germans were unable to commit to the offensive the force levels called for in the original plan... Even if those forces had been available, adding perhaps another 400 tanks and assault guns...".JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • there are no dab links (no action required);
  • there are no ext links for the ext link checker tool to check (no action required);
  • the ref checker tool found no errors (no action required);
  • images seem appropriately licenced to me (no action required);
  • alt text could be added to the images per WP:ALT, although it is not a requirement (suggestion);
  • the image in the lead looks a little big to me as it is dominating the text, I think it would work better if it were 250px (suggestion);
  • the article seems generally fine to me, but I don't have specific knowledge of the subject. In this regard, can I ask what has been done to address Sturmvogel's comments? AustralianRupert (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • There's a clarification needed tag in the Mobilization section. Can this be dealt with please? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support: as I don't think my one comment is a war stopper at this late date and the article is generally fine, IMO, although I don't have expert knowledge. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I'm not sure how I can clarify that sentence more. Nevermind, I see the explanation. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence altogether, because I can't find a number from a reliable source on the ideal strength of a panzer division in late-1944. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support It checks out fine even if the images might be a bit large. I wouldn't bother fixing that though because there really isn't aanything detrimental about having large images that depict what they do. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:10, 29 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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 10:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

List of battlecruisers of Russia

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I intend to send this to FLC and I think that an ACR is a worthwhile step to get into shape.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Good work so far. Am not entirely sure how the A-class criteria apply to lists, but here goes... The Land (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

A1. I think a few citations in the prose section on the Borodinos are necessary as there aren't any at the moment. Also see below.

Good catch, that's what I get for replacing the former text wholesale. I'll add some shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A2. Largely there, but a few comments on details :-

First and second sentence of lead. What is the source for the first sentence about how the Russians intended, in 1905, to use their armoured cruisers. Also I am not sure that the citation to Roberts justifies the statement "This concept was very different from the primary roles for the battlecruiser envisioned by the British Royal Navy and the Imperial German High Seas Fleet". Reading Roberts' list of roles for the battlecruiser it gives the impression that using speed to engage the head of the line was indeed a function of the battlecruisers 'so long as the enemy battleships were engaged'. So, while I can see the motivation behind what the article says currently, I don't think it's quite right. And also I think that this particular point might better belong in the section in the Borodinos, than at the very start of the article.

While Roberts may list that as one of the BC's roles, the Brits never seemed to think of using them that way. If they had then they would never have built the Queen Elizabeths, which were designed specifically for that role. I think that Roberts was being comprehensive and listing the Russian doctrine in with all the others. I need to think on your other points.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's not quite clear what Roberts is talking about - but since he scarcely mentions the Russian navy in his book at all, it's unlikely that he is encompassing Russian sources. So a different citation needs to be provided for the sentence starting "this concept..." - though I'm sceptical that the Russian concept of employment was actually that different from the British/German one. The Land (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This area is my only remaining concern with the article. The Land (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll stand by the statement that the Russians were primarily concerned engaging the van with all other roles secondary, unlike the Germans and Brits who viewed that role as secondary. Remember that the Borodinos actually had _more_ armor than did the Gangut class dreadnoughts; armor that they'd need to survive against enemy dreadnoughts in the van, unlike the Brits who preferred only to do that if the enemy dreadnought was otherwise engaged.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You may well be right - but I still think this statement needs sourcing, and I don't see anything in Roberts Battlecruisers to support it. There must, somewhere, be an appropriate source for it....The Land (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's sourced already from McLaughlin. I just had to move the cite one sentence over, which is why you probably didn't notice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to see some armour statistics quoted in the summary tables.

Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In the key, you say "displacement" is "full combat load". This isn't one of the standard measures of displacement for warships, which are "design" displacement (ie. a configuration selected by the designers to yield the design draft), "deep" or "full" displacement (all stores, crew, fuel, ammunition feedwater), and, after 1922, "standard" displacement (no fuel or feedwater but all ammunition). Breyer in Battleships and Battlecruisers of the World lists 32,500t as the design displacement for the Borodinos. The displacement figure used probably needs to be standardised, rechecked, and corrected if necessary.

Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A3 Yes, particularly once the earlier comments about the lead are dealt with.

A4 Yes

A5 A few issues which probably aren't a bar to A-class but will inevitably be raised at FAC:

File:IzmailConstruction.jpg in the lead - the source doesn't link to the correct image. Copyright information is missing. I think that Russia/Soviet Union have usually worked on a 50-year rule after the death of the artist; if the artist was unknown, then it is probably reasonable to suppose they died before 1960 since the photo dates from 1915. However, you need to check this, and more source information would be very desirable.

Fixed the link. The ultimate source is a copy-vio scan of a Russian magazine that I don't intend to link to. I strongly suspect that the original picture is out of copyright because of its age, but have no way to prove it.

What evidence is there that the image is what it claims to be? Wouldn't it be clearer to link to [23]? The Land (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've always assumed that in the wonderful world of fair-use that it was best to link exactly to the image.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Kronshtadt3.jpg The source link provided doesn't work. This kind of image needs to be traced to a reliable source; if it's speculative, it needs to be marked as such. If it's speculative, then it probably also doesn't count as 'fair use'.

I'm fairly certain that this matches the drawing in the McLaughlin article, although I don't have it to hand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Stalingrad2vew.jpg Was Roberts the originator of this image, or was he reproducing some original technical plans? If the latter, they may be out of copyright. If the former, then I think strictly speaking this isn't a "fair use", and a free alternative needs to be created by someone re-drawing it (!!!)

Roberts?!! The source is given and Roberts has nothing to do with it. I'll use the image until somebody actually redraws it for lack of anything else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

the first description box says, Author: John Roberts ? The Land (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ooops, quite right; I wasn't looking at the first box. Roberts is well known as a nautical draughtsman; he may have based it on plans, but I don't think that that would make it copyright-free.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Is "fate" an appropriate encyclopedic word, as opposed to "status" YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In AmEng it doesn't have any odd connotations, but if it sounds wrong to Indian or British or any other ears, I don't mind if you change it. - Dank (push to talk) 04:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Fate" is the word I would use in British English. "Status" sounds a little forced. The Land (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd only use status if any ships survived today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support
  • There are no dab links, all external links check out and the citation checking tool reveals no errors (no action required); and
  • I have made a number of very minor tweaks, please confirm if you're happy with these changes and revert if you're not.
  • Overall I can find very little at fault as this is an excellent list IMO, which meets the A class criteria. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Generally looks fine to me, but I have one comment.
  • the page number format is inconsistent in the Citations. For instance you have in # 25 "pp. 119-120", but in # 20 you have "pp. 110-11" (where you mean 110-111). These should be consistent, and to be honest, I think it would be best if you use the full number. The example in # 11 just doesn't look right IMO: "pp. 100-05". AustralianRupert (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Standardized.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support: my concern has been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Comments above have been dealt with. The Land (talk) 18:59, 23 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 00:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No. 6 Commando

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...I believe that it meets the A class criteria (and it's about time that ACR has an army unit to review. Joking, of course!) Seriously though, any help and suggestions greatly appreciated. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments This article is in very good shape, but needs a bit more work:
  • Some of the article is written in the passive voice and could be changed to active voice and some of the prose is a bit wordy. I've made some changes to the lead, but more can be done (for instance, "the British prime minister Winston Churchill, realising the need for the British to maintain some form of offensive action in the war, directed his chief of staff, General Hastings Ismay, to begin organising a force of units capable of carrying out raiding operations along the coast of German-occupied Europe" could become "the British prime minister Winston Churchill realised the need for Britain to maintain some form of offensive action and directed his chief of staff, General Hastings Ismay, to begin organising a force which could conduct raids along the coast of German-occupied Europe."
    • I have tried to copy edit the article to address this concern. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Was all of No. 6 Commando to participate in Operation Myrmidion? This is a bit unclear at present.
    • I have added some more info on this. I believe it was the entire unit. Saunders is a bit vague on the details, however Kenneth Macksey indicates on p. 109 of Commando: Hit and run combat in World War II that the force would consist of 3,000 infantry from 1 and 6 Commandos plus one and a half Royal Marine battalions, an armoured regiment and a motor battalion. Unfortunately I only have snippet view of the source on Google books, but here is the link:[24] AustralianRupert (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Were the US Army rangers really organised into 'troops' for Operation Torch? All accounts of the rangers I've read (which don't include coverage of their part in this operation) refer to platoons and companies.
    • You could well be right on this one, however, the source I used (Hilary St. George Saunders, p. 111) uses the term "troops" (the exact quote is "four Troops of Rangers who were to be their comrades in arms"). I suspect that Saunders may have just unconsciously filled in a gap in his knowledge (i.e. he just assumed that they were organised the same way the British commandos were). Sorry, this isn't really addressing the issue, but I'm not sure how to get around this. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
      • The US Army official history and Rick Atkinson's book An Army at Dawn identify only the 1st Ranger Battalion as being involved in Operation Torch, though it landed from different ships than the HMT Awatea. Rick Atkinson writes that the ranger battalion was 500 strong and was organised into six companies (pp. 79–80). Taking all that into account, I think that you can safely refer to either 'hundreds' of rangers or just US Army rangers. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
        • I have reworded it based on this suggestion. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • There are a few single sentences and short paras out on their own which could be combined with other paras
    • I have tried to combine a few of these sentences in the copy edit above. I'm not sure if I have adequately dealt with this though. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It should be possible to source maps of North Africa and Normandy from the US Army official histories and these would be helpful in illustrating the article given that this unit traveled around a lot (let me know if you can't find the one on North Africa online; I have it on CD).
    • I have added one map in now that shows where No. 6 Cdo went ashore on 8 November 1942. I'm not really sure if I've tagged it correctly when I uploaded it to Commons. Would you mind taking a look at the description page on Commons and see if you agree with the licencing etc.? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The term "unit's integrity" might need to be explained as this use of 'integrity' is a bit of a technical term
    • I have added a bit on to clarify what this means. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Is it correct to say that the commandos "were forced to take up defensive duties" in Normandy? - 'directed', 'ordered' or 'required' might be more appropriate than 'forced' unless the commandos strongly objected to this deployment
    • I have reworded this. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • 'Far East' is obsolete and a bit vague - I presume that the brigade was to be sent to India for operations in Burma and later Malaya
    • Agree, good point. I have changed it to say as you suggest. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Do we know which part of Germany this commando conducted occupation duties or anything about how this went? - at present the last six months of the unit's short history is covered only in a sentence. Nick-D (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
    • So far, I can't find anything on this unfortunately. I have slightly expanded the section to clarify what they did, howerver. I will keep searching, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Fair enough; it's very hard to find this kind of information on regular infantry units. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the review, Nick. I think I've addressed them all now. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support My comments are now addressed and I've given the article a further copy edit, and I'm very happy to support this A class nomination. I would suggest, however, that the article's prose be revised to reduce the number of times the term 'they' is used; its often difficult to determine whether this is referring to the men on No. 6 Commando or the units of the 1st Commando Brigade. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I will read over it again tonight and see if I can reduce any of these. I think Anotherclown's copyedit might have got a few of them. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - a few minor points only:
  • No dab links, external links check out, images all have alt text and citation checker reveals no errors (no action required);
  • I have tweaked a few things, please confirm you're happy with the changes;
    • Thanks, looks good. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The following few sentences in the 'Operation Torch' section seems clunky to me: "The voyage took approximately three weeks and at 22.15 on 7 November 1942, wearing American uniforms and carrying American weapons in an attempt to placate the Vichy French defenders,[24] No. 6 Commando took to their landing craft.[25] They were to take part in the landings in Algiers harbour." Maybe reword?
    • Reworded. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • In the fourth para in the 'Further operations in North Africa' section you use the phrase 'costly attacks' twice in two sentences, it was getting late and I couldn't think how to reword, perhaps you might have more luck; and
    • Reworded and expanded (!?). It was significant so needed a bit more on it, IMO, which I have now done. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • You may want to read over it one more time in full, as they are a few places where you could probably condense your prose (some sentences are a little wordy).
    • I think this has been taken care of, but will read over it again tonight and see if I can reduce anything. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyway that's it from me. Overall this is a well written and well cited article on an important unit. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Too easy, looks even better now, striking my comments. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• If 6 Commando participated in Myrmidon as a unit then there's a disconnect with the lead that states Torch was the first operation as a unit.
  • Reworded. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• A link to Florø would be nice if available.
  • Added, along with a couple of other location links. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• You may have issues with use of the 24-hour clock vs a.m./p.m. at FAC. Just a heads up.
  • Changed to 12 hour time (I think I got them all). The WP:MOS#Times seems to indicate that 24 hour time is okay, but I've noticed that sometimes FAC doesn't agree with MOS. I'm not thinking of taking to FAC at this time, but thanks for the heads up.
• What's a tank harbour? A group of parked tanks?
  • Yes, that's what it is. I've taken out the military lexicon chip from my brain and reworded ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd probably use assembly area myself, but that's American terminology.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• One the assault troops, No. 6 Troop,
  • Tweaked wording. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• This sentence might profitably be broken up: That night, as part of Operation Blackcock, No. 6 Commando—once again under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Lewis as Courtenay-Coade[60] had had to relinquish command after suffering complications from a head injury he sustained in France—advanced over the ice-covered Juliana Canal and took up positions at Maasbracht, in support of No. 45 (Royal Marine) Commando's advance on St. Joostburg.
  • Broken up and reworded. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• Otherwise looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, I think I've fixed everything now. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Just a few comments on the Battle Honours section, could they be put into some sort of chronological order?
  • It is currently in alphabetical order, which to be honest I feel works better than chronological particularly as a number of them span multiple years thus making it a bit difficult for me to determine where they should go. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Fair enough--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• Battle Honours of the British Empire and Commonwealth Land Forces 1662-1991 by Alexander Rodger does not note the Commando Association being issued 'North-West Europe 1944'. Rodger does state, however, that the Commando Association was issued the battle honour 'North-West Europe 1944-1945'. (Rodger, p. 264)
  • I've changed the battle honour according to this. The image provided below confirms what you are saying. Another user added the battle honours and I don't have access to their source, so I'm assuming that they simply forgot to add a dash between 44 and 45, inserting a comma instead. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
    • issues addressed--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• North Africa 1941–43; Rodger notes that the Commando Association was awarded the battle honour North Africa 1942-43 (p.298) The award North Africa 1941-43 was not awarded to any commando units. The North Africa 1941 honour was awarded to the 7th Cavalry (Commando) Regiment. However this seems to be at odds with the Commandos battle honour flag (perhaps an imagine that could be added to the article?)
  • As per above another user added the battle honours so I can't confirm what the Moreman source says. As you state the image you have provided does have "North Africa 1941-43", so I'm not sure what to do with this one. One of sources that I do have, Charles Messenger's work The Middle East Commandos p. 131, says the battle honour is "North Africa 1941-43" so based on that I would prefer to leave it as it is. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Per the below comment, the two sources are at odds with one another in this regard, so i wouldnt worry too much about it; at any rate the colours support what the current source states so i have no issue with this. In regards to the imagine, your right that is something that would have to be looked at and at the moment could hold up progress so no worries.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• Normandy Landings; Rodger notes that this award is called Normandy Landing (no s on the end) (P. 240)
  • Agreed. I've changed this based on the image you have provided. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
    • All issues addressed, sorry i couldnt give a more indeapth review.
    • Support--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Cheers.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. The battle honours were added by another user and I don't have access to the source they have used. I've tweaked them per the image you have provided, however. I would be wary of adding the image to the article because I wouldn't know how to licence it appropriately, and I'm not sure if it would be in the public domain. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Just happen to have Moreman open in front of me.

• North-West Europe is given as North-West Europe 1942, 1944, 1945
• North Africa as North Africa 1941/43
• Normandy Landings with the S

I would go with the CVA website as they are their colours. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jim. Thanks for that. I'm inclined to agree with you. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Skinny87's Comments

The only thing I have at the moment is that the unit's actions briefly linked up with 3rd Battalion of the Parachute Regiment in North Africa at Bone. The article I wrote on the paras in North Africa, British airborne operations in North Africa, has a few sentences on how Bone was defended by the paras and the commandos, as well as a picture of Bone airfield shortly after being captured. Don't know if you want to use any of the info, or the picture especially to break up the text a little. Skinny87 (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and another minor thing: the photo in the infobox. Is it connected at all to the Commando? The caption identifies the troops as from the Devonshire Regiment, I think. Is there a more specific one that can be used? Skinny87 (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added the image of Bone airfield. To be honest, I'm struggling to find any images that specifically identify this unit. The IWM online collection only came up with one (a unit photo from Jan 1945 at Hove cricket ground, but it wouldn't display). I've found one in a book, which I've scanned and uploaded. The book was published in 1996 but attributes the source of the photo as the IWM, with a date of April 1942. Thus I've licenced it as PD-BritishGovt. To be honest, I'm not sure if this is acceptable. Can someone who is has a bit of Commons knowledge take a look at the image that is now in the infobox and see if I've licenced it appropriately? I have a bad feeling that I've commited some heinous copyright breach. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Contact User: Moonriddengirl, she's a copyright supremo and I'm sure she can direct you well. To my admittedly untrained eye, what5 you've done seems okay. Skinny87 (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, I've done this. I'll let you know the response. In the meantime, I've found another image which I'm certain has been tagged correctly and I've added this to the article now too. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:03, 24 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.

---

Promoted. EyeSerene^talk 07:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

USS Indiana (BB-1)

Nominator(s): Yoenit (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has just passed GA nomination and this is the next step on it's way to FA status. It is the first ship article I have done and I have tried to incorporate feedback from the still ongoing A class review of Indiana class battleship as much as possible. My goal is to make the Indiana class into a featured topic eventually, so feedback from this review will also be used for her two sister ships. Yoenit (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - this article is lacking mention of the actual construction in prose, and the relevant dates are only listed in the infobox. The prose itself jumps from drawing-board to commissioning. I would expect that there would at least be a paragraph like I have done in USS Texas (BB-35). -MBK₀₀₄ 03:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, I will get to work on it later today Yoenit (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I added a a few lines on the place of construction, laying down of the keel and launching, is this enough to address your concern about the lack of construction information and show the connection with WP:pennsylvania? Yoenit (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Is there anything on construction or commissioning in The New York Times' archive search? (use the 'advanced' searching to set specific dates) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
        • There is, but I am unsure if it should be included. From MBK's lack of response I gather the section still needs more expansion, so see below for the things covered in the NYT. Bolded text is going to be included in the next rewrite somewhere the next few days.
        • During actual construction there is only a single useful mention and that just says Harvey armor is being ordered. After constructing was completed in April/May 1894 there is some more info: Some testing of the armorplates (which are better covered in Reilly & Scheina, but not specific to Indiana), a minor shitstorm about the ship being docked in Canada for cleaning and some excitement about her trial trip in October. There are also loads of articles about her being commissioned, but they all boil to down to Indiana will be/is/was commissioned with Captain X in command, though I might use the commissioning location from that. Most interesting is actually a mention in 1907 that the shipyard lost a case for the supreme court, where they claimed money because the government was responsible for delaying Indiana's construction for two years. Yoenit (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
          • • Hmm, it seems I should learn to search properly. I have found several more NYT articles now, covering the launching, reasons for the delay and preliminary trial trip. The section has been significantly expanded and now has references to six NYT articles. Further expansion is possible, but I am afraid of diving into trivia and WP:undue. Please comment. Yoenit (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
              • Since this is an article about Indiana I don't see the point in mentioning the other ships of the class. Right now the construction reads like how a class article would be written. Brad (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My lack of response did not indicate that I thought the section needed any other action, my sister is graduating from school and I've been understandably busy and unable to devote more than an hour or two a night to wikipedia, for the next day or so. Accordingly I've struck my oppose since the information I asked for was added, but I do have to agree with Brad above that the section should only mention Indiana and that the section does read more like how the class article should be than an article on an individual ship. Please see USS Connecticut (BB-18) for how an article on a US pre-dreadnought which should be laid out (assuming the ship was a member of a class and not unique). You've placed too much emphasis on the technical/design in the section than what is appropriate for this article as opposed to the class article. After I comprehensively review this article in a few days, this may be a major sticking point in my eventual !vote... -MBK₀₀₄ 06:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• That would probably be because the information in that section is mostly literally from the Indiana class battleship article, converting it to just talk about the Indiana is no problem, nor is removing the technical/design stuff (if I compare the article to the connecticut that would just mean deletion of the last three paragraphs of the design and construction section). I will probably get around to it somewhere this weekend. Yoenit (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support, my issues have been resolved and I've also fixed a ship name issue in the post-Spanish American war since USS Texas (1892) was renamed San Marcos in 1911 to free that name for USS Texas (BB-35). -MBK₀₀₄ 02:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • There are no dab links, the external links all check out, all images have alt text and the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required);
  • Citation style is inconsistent in one place - footnote # 8 (Chesneau et al) appears to be a long citation while in other footnotes you have (correctly) used a variation of the short footnote style (with the full citation in the Bibliography);
    • fixed Yoenit (talk)
  • The first sentence in the 'Early career' section should be reworked ("Indiana was commissioned on 20 November 1895 under the command of Captain Robley D. Evans, nicknamed "Fighting Bob Evans") as it seems choppy;
    • Dank seems to have removed the nickname. Is it alright now? Yoenit (talk)
      • Yep looks good. Anotherclown (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I would like to see the article copy edited in some places as there are a few other examples of similar prose;
    • Once I again it seems like Dank is already doing just that. Yoenit (talk)
  • Lastly, would it be possible to code the citation templates so they are linear with no spaces between each cell, rather than vertical? Its a minor nitpick I know but it makes editing the article quite difficult.

For example:

{{Cite book
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title =
| publisher =
| date =
| location =
| pages =
| url =
| doi =
| id =
| isbn = }}

Becomes:

{{Cite book|last=|first=|authorlink=|coauthors=|title=|publisher=|date=|location=|pages=|url=|doi=|id=isbn=}} Anotherclown (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Done; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Cheers for that, actually there is also a large number of these templates used through out the body of the article and they were primarily the ones I was referring to. If these could also receive similar treatment that would be fantastic. Anotherclown (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Did them right after. - Dank (push to talk) 18:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Cheers, striking comment now. Anotherclown (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Anyone feel like tackling the copyediting? I got the first 3 paragraphs. - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Nevermind, I got it, per the usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I am gonna glance it over right now, but I don't really count. Many thanks Dank, have I told you you are awesome? Yoenit (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    • • Thanks. I accept barnstars and American Express. - Dank (push to talk) 14:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    • One sentence in the lead seemed awkward now so I tried to fix it, no other comments on your copyediting. Yoenit (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Top effort fellas, it reads quite well now. All my concerns have been satisfied so striking all and moving to support. Overall, IMO this article is a well written piece about a very interesting topic. Anotherclown (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Thank you, for your review, your copy-editing, your support and your compliment Yoenit (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Overall looks fine, just a couple of nitpicks from me:
  • Citation # 4 (Bryan BC) seems a bit strange, there is a full stop after 2010 and then also a comma and a clause which ends without a full stop. Can you please check the punctuation with this citation? Perhaps it makes sense to put the comment about "rounded average calculated from the experimental data in this paper, with BB-1 and BB-2 lumped together" in a Footnote rather than a citation?
    •  Fixed [25]
  • the title in Citation # 8 (Conways) needs to be capitalised as it is in the References, i.e. "Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1860–1905" as opposed to "Conway's all the worlds fighting ships, 1860–1905". AustralianRupert (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
    •  Fixed[26] Yoenit (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Support

• I see no need to explain freeboard as well as linking to it, but that's just me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:41, 20 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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 10:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

List of battleships of Austria-Hungary

Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk), White Shadows talk

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because White Shadows and I think it's ready. He has two others open, but I think he is about to close them. Buggie111 (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As for me, I spent literally hours writeing this thing and Parsec has done some minor fixes to the images and grammar. Everything should be in order. As for my other two noms, I've withdrawn them so this is the only one that I'll be working on for now.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 23:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I see a lot of repetition of facts given in the tables, like armament, size, etc.; the text should cover stuff that's not presented in the tables.
• I'd like to see launch dates added to the tables.
• Why hasn't Sokol been consulted?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for not opposeing right away :) ONce Parsec get's a copy of Sokol, I'll ask him to add info into the article from it. As for the repitition, do you want me to remove the stuff in the text that is covered in the tables? The last thing, the launch dates, I'll add those in once I get home today. (I may have to experiment trying to get the table to enlarge without screwing it up) Thanks.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 10:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added in the launch dates and made some typo corrections as well as fix a few false dates in the Erzherzog Karl section. I've also tried to find anything about these ships in Sokol's book from the limited view that I get from google books but could'nt find anything. As for the repetition, should I just remove identical info? What do you want me to do with this? Thanks.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 18:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you should remove redundant info.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Done.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 21:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• SupportComments:
  • no dab links, ext links all work (no action required);
  • images seem appropriately licenced;
  • alt text could be added to the images (just a suggestion, though, as it is no longer a requirement);
  • Citation # 16 needs publisher information if you can get it. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I've added in the publisher. I'll try to get to the Alt text soon as I plan on going for a FL with this.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 15:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Support I wold like to see alt text used for the images, but I will not oppose for this. I cursory glance suggests that the article is in good working order, but seeing as how I am falling asleep writing just this little blurb I think I'll wait until after I've had some sleep to fully review the article and suggest other more important points for fixing (assuming that I actually find some). TomStar81 (Talk) 20:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • There are no dabs, external links check out, and the citation checker tool reveals no errors (no action required);
  • You might consider adding alt text to the photos, although this is not an A class requirement;
  • I'm not an expert on lists, but shouldn't this article still be categorised (i.e. [[Category:List of Battleships]]? etc);
    • No such category currenly exists. When and if one is ever created, I'll add it to this article.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 01:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I've added it to [[Category:Lists of battleships]] now. Anotherclown (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of the lead seems overly long, and could possibly be split;
    • I've broken the lead into three seperate paragraphs now.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 01:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I've tweaked this a little further, please confirm your happy with it and revert if you're not. Anotherclown (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • You mention World War I twice in the first sentence of the last paragraph in the lead, should be reworded;
    • Reworded to say "conflict".--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 01:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • In the Habsburg class section, your sentences are a little out of whack chronologically speaking, i.e. you mention the modernization of 2 ships in 1911 (last sentence 1st para), before you mention the lead ship of the class being laid down in 1900 (1st sentence, 2nd para).;
    • I've moved that sentence to after the sentences about the construction of the ships. Should make since chronologically speaking now.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 01:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The first two sentences of the Radetzky class seem a little repetitive, and could probably be worked into one ("The Radetzky-class battleships were the third group of pre-dreadnought battleships to be constructed by Austria-Hungary.[8] The Radetzky-class was the last class of pre-dreadnoughts that were built by the Austro-Hungarian Navy.)
    • I've merged them togeher.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 01:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me now. Anotherclown (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The 2nd para in the Tegetthoff class section seems too long, and could probably be split;
    • I've split the paragraph in two.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 02:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Good work. Anotherclown (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyway thats it for me now as I have to head off to work, more to follow. Good work so far. Anotherclown (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I've added in alt text to all images.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Good work (personally I hate adding alt text to my articles as its so tedious). Striking all issues as satisfied and moving to support. IMO this is an interesting list, that is attractively laid out, well written and succinct, while at the same time comprehensive. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your support. I plan on takeing this to FLC once this ACR is finnished. I also approve of the changes that you made as well. Thanks :)--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 00:40, 19 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 22:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Action of 9 February 1799

Nominator(s): XavierGreen (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel that the history of the Quasiwar is not adequately covered on wikipedia, as such i have been working on this article covering the first battle in the conflict for the past few weeks and think that it now meets A-Class standards. XavierGreen (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• no dabs, links are good (with link checker tool), alt text present. Will post comments tomorrow or Thursday. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—The main issue is with the prose. The article is in need of a copyedit. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been copyedited by two previously uninvolved editors.XavierGreen (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. Seconding JonCatalán and tending towards oppose without significant work.
• "While Truxtun was cruising independently in his flagship, the frigate USS Constellation, he met and engaged the French frigate L'Insurgente." Would read more easily as "While Truxtun was cruising independently in the frigate USS Constellation, his flagship, he met and engaged the French frigate L'Insurgente."

I dont see the problem with this sentence, but i changed it anyway since it sounds the same to me.XavierGreen (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• "Chasing the French ship through a storm, Constellation was able to force L'Insurgente to surrender after a three hour battle." Was the three hour engagement after the chase through the storm? Was the it in the storm?

I changed the wording of the sentence to make it more clear. The storm started then briefly disapeted and then returned after the action was over.XavierGreen (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• I apologise, I can't get beyond copyedit requests in the second and third sentences of the introduction. I recommend denominating for A and posting a request for a copyedit. Nom, denom, copyedit, nom works better all round than nom, fail, ?, nom. Doug (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Let's not play the game of someone pointing out bad prose or copy and only fixing what is pointed out. The article needs an independent copy edit preferably by someone who has never laid eyes on it previously.

It has been copy edited by two previously uninvolved editors.XavierGreen (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Adding some context to the article would help comprehensiveness. By the time Constellation put to sea, France had seized over 300 American merchant ships because of disagreements over the Jay Treaty. Relate at the end of the article that the captured Insurgent was lost at sea in 1800 and that Constellation later engaged La Vengeance but that particular ship escaped. Brad (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support
  • I have done something of a copy edit on the article now, although I am neither a prose expert nor did I find the article to be as badly written in the first instance as some of the other reviewers. I have seen much worse pass ACR before which makes me wonder what the reasons are for such high standards being applied in this case...
  • In my opinion this is a good little article on an important event, it is well written, suitably researched and succinct. Although again I am no expert on the topic so I cannot with authority say that it covers everything but it looks comprehensive to me. Good work. Anotherclown (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support I've just copy edited the article to convert some prose written in the passive voice to active voice. I think that the article is very comprehensive and well referenced and meets the A class criteria. The last sentence isn't cited at present, but this appears easy to do. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I added an appropriate citation.XavierGreen (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Just a couple of comments from me (happy to support once these are dealt with):
  • per Mos:time#Time of day the time format should be changed from using capital letters for "P.M." to lower case "p.m."
  • the final sentence in the battle section needs something to clarify what it means, e.g. "...was forced to strike his colors, indicating that he wished to surrender";
  • in the Aftermath section "comparatively huge number" seems a bit like hyperbole to me, perhaps "comparatively large number" would work better? — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I fixed these three issues.XavierGreen (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 17:37, 11 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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 08:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

HMS Princess Royal (1911)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it meets the five criteria and I'd like to take it to FAC in the not too-distant future. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Could someone check for non-British spellings and expressions, please? - Dank (push to talk) 19:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• We've got a judgment call to make on the first sentence:

HMS Princess Royal was a British battlecruiser built before World War I, the second ship of the Lion class, which were nicknamed the "Splendid Cats".

• My change was "the Lion class" instead of "her class". "Her class" is common in the first sentence of ships articles, and that has always felt like a reasonable trade-off to me: it's a little bit of an WP:EGG problem, that is, the link is not precisely what it says it is, but OTOH, one of the most important jobs in the first paragraph is not to distract the reader with details so that they can get the main facts quickly. When you're mainly talking about the ship, you don't want to focus on the class. But this article starts focusing on the class right away. I didn't notice a problem when I first read it because I'm so used to "her class" in the first sentence, but when I got to the first sentence past the introduction that talks about the Lion class and wondered what the Lion class was, I felt that we needed something more than we had. Thoughts? This could affect a lot of ship articles. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Okay ... I know we've had this conversation before, and I understand that some of you guys are really happy with the sclass template, and I would have no problem with it at all ... if editors always got the hyphens right. The problem is that they're often wrong (I think everyone's agreed that we don't want a hyphen when "class" is a noun), and because the template shows you an incomprehensible "{{sclass|Moltke|battlecruiser|0}}" in the edit window, proofreaders keep missing the fact that it needs to be fixed. If what you saw in the edit window was "... the first British battlecruisers, the [[Invincible class battlecruiser|''Invincible''-class]].", then the problem would be obvious. Thoughts? These are getting a little tedious; sometimes I have to fix the template 3 times as different editors have different opinions and keep changing the last digit in the template as they reword, getting it wrong every time. There's a general principle here ... you can usually figure out what a Wikipedia article is saying by looking at the edit window, and this is the reason for that ... people can't fix what they can't see. - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, 'preview' can help with that, which lets you see the problem and fix it. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 17:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to preview them myself to see if I've remembered the right digit or not.

• I may have to start investing in style guides followed by major publishers in other countries ... oh joy. "afterwards" isn't supposed to have an s per AP Stylebook ... anyone want to educate me on matters of British style? - Dank (push to talk) 17:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Both spellings are valid according to my dictionary. I wouldn't sweat this one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• "The Indefatigables": User:Yoenit dealt with the same issue in the current ACR WP:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Indiana_class_battleship, and after reading his sources, came to the conclusion that they didn't say "The Indianas" very often and removed it. I'm happy either way, in theory ... it does get tedious saying "the X class, the X class, the X class"; also, if the sources and the crew tended to say this a lot, we're doing our readers a service to mention the terminology. I think the "s" should be italicized, btw, but this is a technical point that I'm not going to argue. All I ask is that you don't assume the reader knows that this means "the Indefatigable-class ships", because it's not as obvious to them as it is to us ... tell them what it means the first time you use it (I made the edit). - Dank (push to talk) 18:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• I can't find a suitable link for deep load ... I think I looked at this issue before and can't remember what I did. It's not in the glossary, on Wiktionary, in an article title, or in Displacement (ship). Anyone have a link? - Dank (push to talk) 18:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't find an exact definition, but I've added one to the displacement article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I created a redirect so that we can link deep load now. It probably needs linking at first occurrence in any article. - Dank (push to talk) 19:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• When I learned that the Polperro Mile was a Cornish location for speed trials, I figured it was surely notable. But there are only 6 English-language ghits for it (9 in all), and they concern only 2 ships, this one and the HMS Nelson. So I'm wondering if the location deserves a mention ... if it does, we'll need a link, either to Polperro or Polpero Mile. - Dank (push to talk) 19:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I didn't add that bit, so I'm not invested. It's a famous location though if you're into British steam warship history and worth an article, or at least part of one that discusses the effects of depth on maximum speed. Nothing that I'm particularly prepared to do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll trust you, not everything important has Google links ... I'll change it to "off the coast of Polperro" and link unless we can find something more specific to link to. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Need a link for Mark II mount (or Mk II or Mk 2). - Dank (push to talk) 20:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Why? The most important think about the mount, its maximum elevation, is already given.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah. In that case, we need a good link for mount (the ones we have are crap), and a subtle change in the wording will convey to the reader that that's the important thing about this kind of mount, I'll make the change. Same for Mark Ic. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
      • P.S. Best I can find at the moment is weapon mount, possibly linking to a section. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC) *****I don't see the need for any sort of link at all. I've given mount types in virtually everything I've written thus far and nobody's ever complained or asked a question. So why now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
        • If forced to guess, I'd say it's because I'm trying to act like a copyeditor, which means I try to expand the audience that could digest this article ... and even if they do get the gist of what you're saying, would their understanding be improved with a link? For instance, the link I added for breech-loading might add something to their understanding, especially the nice image. It would be nice if we had a link that gave us images of several standard mount types to get the point across ... but I'm not going to fail the article without it, especially since I suck at finding images, I just think it would help. - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
          • I could add a picture showing the AA gun even though it's from HMAS Australia that would at least give the sense of what the gun, and its mount, looks like.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
            • So far the article has few images ... that sounds like a good idea. - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• "this gun and one from HMS Lion": I inserted the HMS (or rather, I looked up the secret code from the template that inserts HMS); it was a slight preference because of the possibility of confusion with the Lions. Feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 20:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It's fine as changed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• "After the Battle of Jutland revealed her vulnerability to plunging shellfire": are we talking about the Princess Royal here? I'm confused because the next two paragraphs talk about the HMS Lion ... and is it customary to discuss what happened to sister ships in an article about just the one ship? Did the wartime modifications to Lion have some impact on Princess Royal? - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • And well you should be confused. Excessive copy-pasting, I'm afraid. Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• During what period was Walter Cowan in command? I think you're right to insert it in the narrative, given the friction that "lists of captains" tends to generate, and I'm not sure where else we can insert it, but we have to find some way to pare down that sentence. Also, "leading ships" in that sentence raises some questions for me ... leading which other ships, and did those ships participate? That sentence needs to lose something, and that's one thing we might be able to drop. - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • They were leading the other two battlecruisers under Beatty's command, New Zealand and Indomitable. See the diagram immediately left. I'm not sure that we need to break up the second sentence as the natural breaking point at the 'and' would read very choppy. OTOH Cowan isn't honestly important here and that clause could be dropped to shorten the sentence.
    • Tossed the captain overboard. That works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Any objection if I convert am to a.m.? I believe both are common in the British publishing industry, but AP recommends a.m. - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Not at all. Actually I think it's required by MOS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I haven't gotten an answer at WT:MOSNUM on whether "7:20 a.m. on the 24th ... By 7:35 the ..." is okay, that is, whether you have to repeat the "a.m." every time, as MOS seems to imply. I'll leave this alone for now. I don't think it would be awful with all those "a.m."s, it just wouldn't be my preference. - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Once is enough, IMO. I have no intention of presuming that the reader is stupid enough not to be able to discern the time of day in a close sequence of events once he's given it. I do mention it once it changes from one to the other.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I can't tell whether MOS allows it or not, but if someone complains, we'll just change MOS. Everyone does it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• If I start talking about British style, all I'm going to accomplish is to show I don't know anything about British style, but see for instance "quotation marks" in the Times Online style guide and the Guardian's style guide. MOS (usually) requires double quotes. I'll make the changes. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks for the edits, Graeme. Sturm, one change is that there's only one "Indefatigables" left; if you want to keep one or more of these, then please add at the first occurrence, "or Indefatigable-class ships" or "that is, the Indefatigable-class ships". Also I'm not sure how best to link this: "Two 21-inch (530 mm) submerged torpedo tubes were fitted on the beam; fourteen torpedoes were carried." Would it make sense to use the link and extra description that Graeme added, but move those to where "torpedoes" is now? - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Made the edit about the torpedoes ... is it reasonable to assume that 21-inch torpedo tubes carried 21-inch torpedoes? - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• I need more experience before I'm comfortable making a call, but Graeme's response at WT:SHIP#(Not) converting units in the name of a gun and the lack of other responses suggests that ships editors aren't all aboard with "He turned in pursuit and reduced her to a flaming hulk" and similar language. I'll keep an eye on this issue. Also, the MOS edit that I mention in that thread probably accomplished something, but it's too early to figure out what exactly ... so in "... 271 13.5-inch shells during the battle, a hit rate of only 0.7%. She also fired two 13.5-inch shrapnel shells ...", do we have to convert? Does the previous link to a particular 13.5-inch gun mean that we can expect the reader to click on the prior link if they want to know the conversion in millimeters/metres? I don't know yet, I'll keep an eye on this too. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, I've got a specific proposal for this article; let's see how it goes. The first paragraph after the intro says "The Lion-class ships exchanged the 12-inch (305 mm) guns of the older ships for the same number of 13.5-inch (343 mm) guns ...". I can easily support the decision not to go into great detail on the guns here; that can wait for the armament section. But some readers will want to know "which guns?" the first time you bring them up, and the standard way to deal with a situation where some readers want more and some want less is with a link, so they can choose their own path. But we can't do 12-inch guns (linking to the specific guns) per WP:EGG, that is, because we want the reader to trust that links mean what they say and say what they mean (see WYSIWYG for the interface design principle). OTOH, there's nothing wrong with shortening the name to 12-inch Mark X guns (I prefer "Mark" to "Mk" but there are arguments both ways). And once we've linked the guns, anyone who wants to know what that is in metric can just click on the link. We would need to link it one more time, in the armament section where the full name is used, but per my change to MOS and MOSNUM, my guess is we can get by with no conversions to metric for "12-inch" in the text as long as we have those two links, plus the conversions to metric in the infobox ... it's worth a shot. - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I do think that a conversion is necessary if the measurement is used outside of a weapon name.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
      • That's fine with me, and it will make less work converting other articles to the new system. - Dank (push to talk) 22:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• I don't know what to do about the fact that "The Lion class was" can sometimes sound horrible to Brits, and "The Lion class were" can sometimes sound horrible to Americans. My instinct is to avoid the issue and reword where possible. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay, I think the rewording worked here; it's not a problem in this article. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Even though File:Jutland1916.jpg is one click away at Battle of Jutland, it was much easier to follow the text with that image in hand; any chance of using all or part of that image over here? - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Good idea, I've added it at 600px to be fully legible, but I'm not sure if it dominates the article too much.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 600 is way too big, 500 will have to do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• "This was confirmed when the destroyer Landrail ...": I don't understand whether it's the presence of the U-boat that was confirmed or the origin of that torpedo that's being confirmed. - Dank (push to talk) 17:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Since Landrail is noted as spotting a periscope it seems pretty obvious that the presence of a U-boat was confirmed, not of a torpedo.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay, then that's what we need to say, I'll make the change. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Given that I'm relatively new at A-class review, and per the usual disclaimer, support for a thorough ship article that's fun to read. - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • no dab links, ext links all work (no action required);
  • alt text could be added to the images per WP:ALT (this is just a suggestion and I don't believe it is an A class requirement anymore);
  • images seem appropriately licenced to me (no action required);
  • why are Refs # 44, 45 and 48 in long form, while all the others are short citations?
    • Fixed
  • in the References section, Ref # 44 needs an endash for the date range "1904-1919";
    • Somebody already fixed that.
      • I'm arguing the point at WT:FAC; I'd prefer we hyphenate for book titles, but that would mean a change to a lot of FACs. If I win, I'll let you guys know. - Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • some of the ISBNs in the Bibliography have hyphens but others don't. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my comments have been addressed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comments Support
  • There's a citation needed in the Dogger Bank section.
    • Done
  • Images all look good.
  • On that note, is there any possibility of finding more images of the ship?
    • I've exhausted Commons as the only other picture is kinda lame as it in Kronstadt before the war.
      • I was thinking of trawling through google books to see what's there. I've found only this one so far, which is pretty tiny and useless. Parsecboy (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The paragraphs seem a little "wall-of-text"-ish, but maybe it's just because I'm looking at the article on a different computer.
    • I've added a couple of pictures of her opponents to try and break up the text more.
      • The photo of Moltke has to go, it doesn't have a source. You might replace it with this photo of Derfflinger firing a broadside (considering it was this ship that engaged Princess Royal during the run to the south). Parsecboy (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Works for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    • [Previous comment was Sturm's] Could be my doing ... do you want shorter paragraphs, more topic sentences, or less "this happened, then this happened"? - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I think there's a bit too much technical stuff for the individual ship article. I can see having this much detail for Queen Mary, which differed from her half-sisters, but isn't this ship essentially the same as Lion? I won't oppose over this, because this is just my style of article construction, and I think we've talked about this before, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
    • I trimmed one design paragraph down to match the one in Lion, but the rest is a pretty close match for Lion. The only real technical details are in the AA armament because they aren't in the class article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
      • That's fine then. Parsecboy (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
• The article looks pretty good, once the cn tag is fixed I'll support it for A-class. Nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Already fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • One more thing: can we ditch the link to battleships-cruisers.co.uk? I don't like the idea of linking to websites that are in all likelihood committing copyfraud. Parsecboy (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• My concerns have been addressed, so I'm moving to support. Parsecboy (talk) 16:23, 16 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.

---

Franco-Mongol alliance

Promoted AustralianRupert (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Elonka

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I would eventually like to re-nominate the article for FA status. The Franco-Mongol alliance article has a long and complex history, having been the subject of two arbitration cases and various related amendments and other motions over the last few years, but it appears to be stable now. It has been extensively overhauled and rewritten, and each and every source scrutinized for reliability. After review by several editors, the article was promoted to good article status in March 2010, and also underwent a MilHist Peer Review in April 2010. Per advice from MBK004,[27] I am now seeking A-Class status on the article before trying again for an FA nom (see original 2007 FA nom). Any and all comments appreciated, thanks. --Elonka 20:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oh no! - you caught me at a horrible time. If I forget to give this a full review in the next few days, please leave a reminder note on my talk. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, you already reviewed the article last month at the peer review, with good comments which have since been addressed (sorry for my delay in addressing them, I was on wikibreak, traveling in Tunisia). There have been no major changes to the article since then, just minor tweaks here and there. --Elonka 12:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I did, but I wanted to review the rest of it too. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support
  • With regards to this: "If the target acquiesced, the Mongols absorbed the populace and warriors into their own Mongol army, which they would then use to further expand the empire. If a community did not surrender, the Mongols forcefully took the settlement or settlements and slaughtered everyone they found.[23] Accordingly, many communities simply surrendered immediately, including some Christian realms in the path of the Mongols.[24]" -- I'd bet that this is how the Mongols were able to expand so amazingly quickly. Does a source back that up? If so, it might be an interesting addition.
  • Otherwise, I can't find anything major. Although there's something wrong with the Encyclopædia Iranica link at the bottom. Great work; I thoroughly enjoyed reading through this. I look forward to supporting at the FAC. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support, but...
  • This is of course a wonderful subject and a wonderful article, and I would be delighted if it could reach FA, after my first attempt 3 years ago. However, the "Franco-Mongol alliance" article is currently quite POV and written in a misleading way, in that it actually denies that anything such as an alliance ever occurred between the Franks and the Mongols. This is contrary to what a huge number of historians say and write on the question (see 50 historians describing the existence of a Franco-Mongol alliance). In reality, the Franks and the Mongols, after making numerous agreements to fight against the Mamluks (the very definition of an alliance), actually engaged into combined operations on several occasions (1260, 1271, 1281, 1299-1303). Admittedly, these efforts met with huge difficulties and ended in defeat against the Mamluks, but this is not a reason to write that no alliance ever occurred. I have reviewed in detail the sources User:Elonka has brought forward to promote her argument that "no alliance occurred", and it turns out that most sources she quotes don’t say what she claims, but are actually much more on the line of "there were great hopes, alliances and collaboration took place to a limited extent, and these ventures had limited results or ended in military failure" (see Elonka's claims vs what historians actually say). I believe this article should be better balanced, by combining the views of authors who say there was an alliance, and those who say there was none, in the true spirit of Wikipedia. It seems to me that balance is an absolute requirement if this article is ever to become a proper FA. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Is there a communication problem here? My view (that it appears you both share?) is that there were a number of alliances, truces and agreements between Mongol armies and Crusader factions, but there was never an overarching alliance. When I read the article, I think it gave a good account of this. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Many authors do speak about an overarching alliance (here), hence, by the way, the very existence of the expression Franco-Mongol alliance in the academic community... It is true however that it mainly consisted, to your point, of "a number of alliances, truces and agreements between Mongol armies and Crusader factions". I have been proposing variations of a wording for a balanced introduction sentence on the line of "The Franco-Mongol alliance was a series of diplomatic and military rapprochements between the Crusader Franks and the Mongols during the second half of the 13th century.". I would be perfectly OK with adding along your proposal: "An overarching alliance, with effective military action, failed to be reached however, and instances of collaboration ended with limited results and an ultimate defeat against the Mamluks" and organize the article in that spirit. It seems common sense enough, but Elonka has been insisting on speaking exclusively about "attempts at an alliance" and denying that any kind of alliance actually took place, which neither reflects your own understanding nor what a large part of the historians write. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 18:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Just for the record, PHG is currently banned by the Arbitration Committee from editing in areas related to the Crusades or the Mongol Empire (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG#Motions). So Ed, to answer your question, yes, there's a bit of a communication problem, hence the need for the intervention of ArbCom. PHG is definitely permitted to participate on talkpages, as long as he is able to do so in a civil fashion, but I (and others) tend to disagree with his interpretation of mainstream historical consensus. --Elonka 06:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Elonka, I would appreciate if you could simply look at the facts and sources, rather than make personal attacks and hide behind an unfair ban that you have been promoting artfully. If Arbcom allows me to intervene on Talk Pages in this subject area, it is precisely to allow me to raise issues and have discussions with fellow contributors in my full right: it is not for you to dismiss my posts with a "he's banned from editing anyway, so don't listen to him" everytime. By doing so systematically, you are contravening to the very spirit of Arbcom's resolutions. Actually, contrary to what you have been claiming for three years, a huge number of historians are positive about a Franco-Mongol alliance taking place (here), Jerusalem was indeed occupied by the Mongols in 1300 as uncovered by User:Srnec here, and you have been misrepresenting the sources repeatedly as shown here. To have a fair and balanced article, all it would take is some sense of fairness and compromise on your part, rather then just clinging to an academically false and approximative statement such as "there were only attempts at an alliance". Don't you think that the introduction sentence proposed above is a fair compromise? Can't we just move forward with a statement that fairly incorporates both views, and doesn't just keep claiming that the subject of the article is something that never happened (example: "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance, took place during the 13th century..."). As we move towards FA, it is essential that this article gives a fair picture of what historians actually write on the subject... Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 07:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
            • I read 'attempts at an alliance' as 'attempts [for an overarching] alliance' rather than what you are saying... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
              • The point is that historians say both things: many write that there was indeed an alliance ("overarching" or not: here), while others say that there were only "attempts" (a few here). These are two major schools of thought, and to be NPOV with the subject matter we just need to express both views in the article, starting from the introduction, with a sentence such as "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance, took place during the 13th century...". It is fairly simple, and only consistent with what Wikipedia recommends when there are conflicting significant opinions on any given subject... Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 19:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to jump in here since this came up again. Elonka is not the one pushing a novel theory by blatantly misrepresenting sources as the ArbCom cases should have made clear to PHG. Anyone is welcome to review the sources themselves and see how many of PHG's "sources" actually say the polar opposite of what he claims. After two years of this, frankly, we've just learned to ignore him, however I wouldn't want his mistruths to derail this process. Shell ^babelfish 22:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom declined to make a comment on content, and actually encouraged me to bring up content issues with other contributors, so I think you should respect that, Shell. Too many untruths have been said on this subjects, so everybody is indeed invited to check the sources for themselves and make their own opinion (sources here). Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 05:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Here be Dragonnes. The End Is Nigh. Doug (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed the arguments in brief doesn't change my perspective. Primarily, Elonka's exposition wins for brevity, clarity and the lack of 'star scales' for classifying incidence of academic occurence. There may also be an issue of definition. In this context, I take an 'alliance' to mean a collaboration between groups or especially nation-states that is documented and that results in meaningful, material and/or political collaboration between the parties to the agreement. Other alliances may occur in word but not in deed, or between on-the-scene commanders at small scale in the form of 'cooperation' (which I choose to define as distinct from an alliance), but ad-hoc collaboration or cooperation cannot be considered a substantive alliance. Doug (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the assessment. I don't think the point is about our personal understanding of what "an alliance" means, or what our individual perceptions of the Mongols are or are not ("pragmatic (at best) or ruthless (at worst)"? [28]). The point is only that a significant enough number of historians do qualify these relations as an alliance indeed (sources), and that this should be properly reflected on Wikipedia independently of individual interpretations. Best Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 05:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The definition of terms in the debate by third party authors and ourselves may be no less than critical to this debate. If you decline to define the terms of this debate, how can your opinion be assessed rationally and openly? 'Throwing the book' at the discussion is not constructive. Be under no illusion that in this context, given your explicit rejection of consensus you are taken to be presenting an opinion and the onus rests on your shoulders to present your position with the utmost clarity. Doug (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, knowledge on Wikipedia is not just a cluster of opinions and prejudices by its editors. Nothing should count but what academics actually say on any given subjects, and our role should only be to present this knowledge in as neutral and balanced a manner as possible. I have given a detailed account of the numerous authors who describe the Franco-Mongol relationship as an alliance (sources): my only point is that they should be given fair representation. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 04:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support on 1a, 1d (see comments), 2, 3 and 4 with minor comments.
  • Since "unusual passive truce" is unclear, perhaps: " The Crusaders of Acre though, saw the Mongols as a greater threat than the Muslims, and engaged in an unusual passive truce which allowed the Egyptians to advance unhampered through Crusader territory..."
    • Adjusted. --Elonka 06:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "European attitudes began changing in the mid-1260s, as the perception of the Mongols changed from that of enemies to be feared, to potential allies against the Muslims." contains redundancy, suggest: "European attitudes began changing in the mid-1260s from perceiving the Mongols as enemies to be feared to potential allies against the Muslims."
    • Tweaked. --Elonka 06:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "But the plan failed, and the Egyptians later besieged and captured that island as well. With the Fall of Ruad in 1302 or 1303, the Crusaders lost their last foothold in the Holy Land.[7]" -> "The plan for collaboration failed, the Egyptians later besieged the Crusaders and with the Fall of Ruad in 1302 or 1303, the Crusaders lost their last foothold in the Holy Land.[7]"
    • Done. --Elonka 06:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "...and his empire was split up by his descendants into four sections, or Khanates, which degenerated into civil war." Although no expert, my perception is that degenerated is a bit strong in this context.
    • Hmmm, I Googled this, and "degenerated into civil war" seems to be in fairly common use. I'm open to other suggestions though? --Elonka 06:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I misunderstood, but "Edward I's Crusade", although anachonistic and inneffectual, appears to be an instance of genuine allied behaviour. Did Edward and the Mongols meet? A meeting between an 'allied' Prince of the Blood and a general with 230 and 10,000 men respectively is appropriately ironic.
    • There's very little information remaining from the time. To my knowledge, there's no documentation of whether or not they actually met, and historians are working mainly from the bits of correspondence that have survived, and we don't have all of those letters either. For a good article on this, see Reuven Amitai's article, "Edward of England and Abagha Ilkhan: A reexamination of a failed attempt at Mongol-Frankish cooperation" --Elonka 06:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "Reasons for failure" fails to note that the Mongol manifestly did not have the cultural context required to understand the highly fractured, multi-tiered states of Western Europe with separation of Church and 'state', such as it was. Confusion of the Pope with a ruler of a tract of land comparable to their own empires is a highly revealing feature of (particularly early) Mongol thinking. I'm guessing this is OR, but worth including if it can be found.
  • I made a couple of edits of typo "contacts" to the singular.
  • With some reservation in such an environment, I'll comment on my perception of POV or undue weight in the article: I see none. My POV: to the extent that the Mongols thought about the Franks at all, they (quite rightly) assessed that their ability to project power to the Middle East was negligible and therefore not worthy of the respect required for an alliance in any sense. To suggest that these pragmatic (at best) or ruthless (at worst) Mongol leaders would take an 'army' of a few hundred Crusaders seriously is romanticism. As a matter of fact, the Mongols (with a few anachronistic exceptions) only materially and repeatedly treated with European states as enemies or vassals, and evidence supports the supposition that these were the only relationships that they perceived as relevant to the interaction within their cultural context. Doug (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much for the thoughtful review and comments, it's appreciated. I think I've addressed everything addressable, though if you have any further comments, please let me know! --Elonka 06:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support No problems reported with external links or alt text. One dab link needs to be located and if at all possible fixed. Otherwise it looks good. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Heh, these Dab pages are a moving target sometimes. I see that a new one just popped up a few days ago. Thanks for the catch, I've fixed the link. --Elonka 06:09, 10 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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 10:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

SMS Posen

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Yet another German battleship, this one was one of the first dreadnoughts. This article passed GA last week, and I feel that it is pretty comprehensive. I appreciate any and all comments directed at improving the article, towards an eventual run at FAC (that means hack and slash all you want, Dank). Parsecboy (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: just a quick look at the moment (sorry, its late here):
  • no dab links, no ext links to play up (no action required);
  • images seem appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • the infobox image could have alt text added to it given that the other photo has it;
  • in the Citations subsection, citation # 6 has "Gardiner and Gray" while citation # 37 has "Gardiner & Gray" (these should be consistent);
  • some of the ISBNs have hyphens while others don't. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for checking the technical/refs stuff. I added alt text and fixed the two issues you pointed out with the references. Parsecboy (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support with a couple comments
  • What happened to the cool note you used to use to tell readers what "SMS" means?
  • A couple grammar issues, but Dank's probable copyedit will take care of those. If not, I'll go through and attempt a copyedit myself. The content looks good to me. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I think it was the Helgoland ACR where Dank came up with the current solution. And Dank is going to be doing a copy-edit sometime soon. Thanks for making the fixes you did. Parsecboy (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - another phenomenal German dreadnought article. Cam ^(Chat) 03:47, 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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 10:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I've cleaned it up and expanded the lead and I believe that it meets the requirements. This will be going to FAC afterwards so please point out any problems with prose, etc. Help with the lead would also be appreciated and I'm not sure that the list of captains is worth retaining; your thoughts on the issue would be appreciated. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with external links. One dab link needs to be located and if at all possible removed. None of your images have alt text, which is not required due to a change in the guidelines, however I would feel better about having them in the article.
    • Dab fixed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I took a crack at the lead, let me know what you think.
    • Thanks, tweaked it a bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • More to follow...TomStar81 (Talk) 21:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Can we merge the design and general characteristics sections? The latter seems to me to be too short to be its own section.
  • In the armament section you have the line "The Americans did much the same with the provision of four twin 8-inch (203 mm) gun turrets on their Lexington-class carriers.", while I understand why it was include I

Yes think it would do better as a footnote or else be removed altogether; it seems to me that its inclusion in the text is distracting the flow of information for Kaga specifically.

• • • Yeah, a foot note would be better.
  • Can we expand on the armor section at all? Its very very short and in its current form would problem do better either as a footnote somewhere or linked to the class article since details of this type are usually addressed on the class articles.
    • Maybe it can be expanded. However, from what I remember, she had a very simple armor system that had been radically reduced from her BB design, so it has to be covered here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge the Early History and Reconstruction sections, the former can not survive as its own section with only a line or two and the latter is in a position to absorb that information to explain the rebuild. Lemme see what I can do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The history before WWII section is IMO too short to stand alone as a section, I would recommend extending it some or merging it with another section.
    • That's a problem because there's very little substantial information on her activities before WWII available with which to expand it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I recommend making the Battle of Midway header a secondary header to the World War II header so as to make the two sections flow better, after all the Battle of Midway was a part of the Second World War.
    • Agreed
  • Why do we need parenthesis around the plane names (ie "Vals", "Zeros", etc)? Wouldn't it make more since to drop the parenthesis and simply state the names as they are? If I recall correctly this has been the approach in other battle articles, and its seems to work just find so far. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Somebody else did the quotation marks, presumably because they're codenames, and I didn't feel like fighting them, but I'd just as soon get rid of them as they're a distraction.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
• Tentative Support After taking another read through I think that a general copyedit would do the article good, as there are some parts that read awkwardly and could do with a third party to straiten out. Otherwise, it looks good to me. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comments:
  • in the lead, this sentence possibly needs to be clarified: "The following month her aircraft bombed Darwin, Australia and she was forced to return to Japan for repairs after hitting a rock so she did not participate in the Indian Ocean raid." Did Kaga hit the rock while participating in the bombing of Darwin? If so I'd suggest re-wording "and" (and she was forced) to "after which..."
    • Fixed
  • the first paragraph in the Design and description section doesn't have a citation;
    • Done
  • in the Flight deck arrangements section, consider rewording this: "The utility of her middle flight deck had to be questionable..." ("had to be questionable", or "was questionable")?
    • Done
  • In regards to the above clause, I feel as it seems like analysis it should have a citation directly following the statement, even if it is just a duplication of the citation at the end of the paragraph;
    • Done
  • you have a mixture of terms regarding Second World War/World War Two. In the Flight deck arrangements section you use "Second World War", but later use the term "World War Two";
    • Fixed
  • could a note be placed next to "second class reserve status" in the Early service section explaining what it means. From what I've read of the IJA there were "first reserves" and "second reserves" which relate to training obligation, I think?
    • Deleted because I'm not sure what the differences actually were.
  • in the Service in World War Two section, I think in the first sentence "she" should be replaced with "Kaga" to be specific about the subject of the paragraph;
    • Agreed
  • dashes should be consistent with WP:DASH (page ranges in Footnotes for instance, and hyphens in Commanding officers;
    • The sentence before the WP:DASH section says: "Hyphenation involves many subtleties that cannot be covered here; the rules and examples presented above illustrate the broad principles that inform current usage." One of those subtleties is that hyphens are often fine in place of dashes in smaller fonts, particularly in tabular data. I've seen many articles get through FAC and ACR with no one complaining about the hyphens in the footnotes. This isn't a big deal, but to make it easier for the writers and reviewers, it might not be a bad idea to add something to WP:MOSSHIP about this. - Dank (push to talk) 21:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Actually the MOS specifies that n dashes are to be used for page ranges and dates. Done--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • the References section should be sorted in alphabetical order by author's surname;
    • Done
  • in the Footnotes sometimes you have Author, Title, page # (e.g. Campbell), but then Author and page. Is there a reason for this?
    • Somebody else's citation; now cleaned up.
  • for numbers greater than nine, sometimes you use numerals (e.g. 27 Kates) but then at other times you use words (e.g. "fourteen Devastators"). In the Service in World War Two section, when discussing the Pearl Harbor attack you sometimes use numerals for values less than nine, e.g. "9 Mitsubishi A6M...". The MOS generally prefers words for those values less than 9 and numerals for 10 and above;
    • Done
  • the final sentence of the Battle of Midway section probably needs more information. In the lead you state that debris was found, but the main wreckage has not been located, however, this is not mentioned later on in the Battle of Midway section;
    • Mildly expanded.
  • in the Commanding officers section there are a couple of * but it doesn't seem to state what these mean (e.g. next to December, Rear Admiral and RADM);
    • No longer relevant--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • is there are source for the claim in Note 1? — AustralianRupert (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • sourced.
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - the general consensus forming at Wikipedia_talk:SHIPS#Commanding_Officers is that listing the commanding officers is not acceptable. I cannot support an article with a list of COs in it. A stand-alone list is preferable in my view if the desire is to maintain the information. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • That's why I mentioned it. Nuked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Ahh, I didn't see that at the beginning. I've done a bit of copyediting, but am not ready to support just yet. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 03:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Objections resolved. Cla68 (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Mild oppose. The Allied code names for Japanese aircraft, such as "Val" and "Kate" should be avoided. The Japanese didn't use those terms, so they are POV. The formal aircraft designations should be used. Also, there are a couple of other sources that should be used for this article. I'll get to those shortly. Cla68 (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

...I don't comprehend how they're POV - they're (a) historical fact, and (b) are the terms the majority of Wikipedians will know these aircraft as. They're no more POV than the NATO reporting names assigned to Soviet aircraft. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed}14:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, do you have sources that label "Kate" a derogatory or biased term, and do these sources have weight and currency? If not, then it would be better to go with the English-language sources we've got; I'm not the expert, but the online sources I'm looking at all use "Kate". Even if the term is considered inappropriate for some reason by some sources, it might be better to use the widely-used term and mention the controversy, rather than hiding the widely-used term. - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Since about 1990, many, if not most of the Pacific War histories I've read, including most that I used when building the Guadalcanal campaign articles, stopped using those names for Japanese aircraft. Lundstrom's books, in particular, never use those names, instead calling them Aichi kanbaku, Nakajima kanko, Mitsubishi Rikko, or whatever. One problem with using "Kate", "Val", "Betty" and so on is that many, if not most, of those names didn't start being used by the Allies until late 1942 or 1943. So, at the time that Kaga was sunk in the Battle of Midway, the Allies didn't refer to the Kaga's aircraft as "Vals" and "Kates." In fact, from what I've seen in official reports of the Battle of Midway and Coral Sea, the American officers simply referred to the Japanese aircraft as "Type 97", "Type 99", "Aichi dive bombers" "Nakajima torpedo bombers" or simply "enemy dive bombers" and "enemy torpedo bombers" all of which are actually proper terms for these aircraft. See here, here, here, here, and here. "Zero" is ok to use for the A6M because the Japanese called that aircraft by almost the same name, "Type Zero." Cla68 (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I completely misunderstood your point. Nice research. - Dank (push to talk) 03:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as sources go, there are several more listed here that could have been used for this article. One in particular I wanted to point out is this one:

• Peattie, Mark R. (1999). Sunburst: The Rise of Japanese Naval Air Power 1909-1941. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-59114-664-X.

This book is the book in English on the IJN's aviation arm. I would hope that any article on an IJN aircraft carrier would reference this book. Now, I know that it may be unrealistic to expect all these sources to be used to get an article to A Class level. I would expect, however, that this book at least be used before the article is nominated for Featured consideration. If all the other concerns on this page, including mine about the use of "Val" and "Kate" are addressed, I'll withdraw my sourcing concern until after this article is promoted to A Class. Cla68 (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the US Navy link to the Midway OB lists the aircraft by both Japanese designation and US codename I believe that your issue with the names is inappropriate. The first several examples in the article use both and then use the codename. What makes you think that general readers only read the recent scholarship? I'd bet that Walter Lord's book on Midway is read more often than is Shattered Sword which is a far superior account of the battle. I don't bargain in exchange for a support, or even a withdrawal of an oppose. Persuade me that you are correct and I'll change the article for the better, but if not, then not. So far so I'm not persuaded.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought about getting the Peattie book on ILL, but decided not to bother since the focus is on the ship, not her air group. Perhaps that was a mistake, but I'm not sure how useful it would be in terms of the ship's history. My copy of Jentshura is in storage, but IIRC it doesn't have much more than Conway's and I'm not fond of using Osprey books unless there's no other choice. I've read Kaigun and Dull's book, but found nothing of use therein.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sunburst goes into great detail on the design, purpose, and peacetime operations of the IJN's carriers, not just the airgroups. If I can find the time, I'll add some information to the artice from Sunburst and I think you'll see what I mean. If you noticed, Sunburst was a major source used by Parshall and Tully in Shattered Sword. My view on using the Allied code names stand. Notice that in the Battle of the Coral Sea article it never, except perhaps in the footnotes, uses the Allied code names for the Japanese aircraft. That article has received between 20,000 and 50,000 hits per month and in the year since it made FA no one has complained about the non-use of the Allied code names for the Japanese aircraft. Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I just ordered Sunburst from ILL, hopefully it will get here in a week or two. I think that the codenames and the formal designations are equally good, you have a bias towards one; I could care less, but I'm not going to spend the time to change perfectly valid terminology for what are essentially stylistic reasons. Feel free to do so yourself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I just got Sunburst and it was a bit of a disappointment. Not much mention of Kaga or her air group other than a brief reference to the first aerial victory claim over Shanghai in '32; I'd been hoping for a bit details more on her involvement in China.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment. It's occasionally suggested by copyeditors that one word is tighter and better than two; it would be nice if it were always that easy, but it's not, and besides, a copyeditor doesn't do the writer or the reader any service by substituting their "voice" for the writer's. But take this, for example: "... but her initial configuration was not satisfactory. To address the issues with her initial rebuild, especially in regard to her three flight decks, slow speed and exhaust arrangements, she was comprehensively rebuilt during the mid-1930s. This second rebuild concluded in 1935 and adequately addressed the problems from the initial conversion." I think that can be shortened (also adding some useful detail from the article text) to: "She was rebuilt again from 1933 to 1935, increasing her top speed, improving her exhaust systems, and adapting her flight decks to more modern, heavier aircraft." We all spend a lot of time reading older sources, and even 20 years ago in the US, it was much more common to see a slow-paced prose style, but everything has changed, driven by shrinking space devoted to text, faster-paced dialogue on television, and the increasing ability and desire to read quickly. It's unfashionable to add clauses that are more or less implied by the text you've already got. I'll do more tightening in the morning, and as always, you're welcome to revert anything I do. - Dank (push to talk) 04:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm torn here; I think I'm going to rewrite "During her career, Kaga's aircraft supported ...". I personally think it's fine, actually, I read "during her career" as a shorter and better way to say "now I'm going to summarize her career" ... but I think in general it's safer at FAC to rewrite phrases so that it's harder for people to delete them as "redundant". - Dank (push to talk) 14:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• I think some work is needed to restore the tarnished reputation of copyeditors because it's generally done wrong around here ... and I think that's all I'll say about that at the moment. Copyediting doesn't work unless the copyeditor has no ego invested and no stake in the outcome, only a desire (for whatever reason) to show that they're a competent copyeditor. Generally, that means the copyeditor should just make the changes they want to make, without drawing attention to themselves or faulting the writer, and keep doing it for the writers who like the end product and stop for the writers who don't. But copyediting also requires periodic transparency to solicit feedback, and Sturmvogel has agreed to let me do that with this article. - Dank (push to talk) 16:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• On the Great Kate Debate, I don't have much to offer other than the general principle, and policy discussions at WT:AT have more or less reflected professional standards. When a name for somebody or something is consistently used in sources of that time, you'll never get people who grew up during that time or who read those sources to believe that the name isn't appropriate; on the other hand, communities of scholars tend to get very fixed ideas about what is and isn't appropriate, and people outside those communities rarely succeed in getting them to change their minds. The only way to answer questions like these is to go with the terms that are used and likely to be used by whatever your readership is reading. - Dank (push to talk) 16:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• I delinked Australia per WP:LINK. If readers want to find out about Australia, they can get there by clicking on bombed Darwin, Australia. - Dank (push to talk) 16:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Jardiel Poncela said, "When something can be read without effort, great effort has gone into its writing", and that's what drives many copyediting decisions. So for example, I changed: "... and she was forced to return to Japan for repairs after hitting a rock so she did not participate in the Indian Ocean raid." to: "She missed the Indian Ocean raid in April after hitting a rock and returning to Japan for repairs." (I'm not faulting your decision, there were trade-offs here.) It helps the reader if they know sooner rather than later what the point of the sentence is; hitting a rock isn't very interesting, but missing a major naval engagement is. Also, when you've got a chronology going and you put two items in the same sentence without mentioning the date of the second, the reader will make a vague assumption that the second was at roughly the same time, and this one wasn't, so I added the month. - Dank (push to talk) 16:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, and note I used "returning to Japan" rather than "being forced to return to Japan ..."; there are several reasons, but the main one is that we can make reasonable assumptions about the reader's ability to make sense of the narrative. I make a fair number of changes like this one, removing assumptions about what people "had to do" and "wanted to do" because it reflects my understanding of trends in professional publishing, and so far, I've never gotten reverted. - Dank (push to talk) 16:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I rewrote this to clarify the timeline. See how it reads.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Saw it, liked it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• "debris identified as belonging to Kaga" -> "debris from Kaga": if what's interesting is the process (for instance, if there's some doubt about whether the identification is accurate), then "debris identified as belonging to Kaga" works fine, if you follow it immediately with what the sources say casting doubt on the identification, for instance. If you believe the source you're using, that the debris really was from Kaga, and the identification process isn't a story in itself, then "debris from Kaga" is better. - Dank (push to talk) 18:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• however, therefore: you're using these and other words to alert the reader that you're transitioning to a new topic, and in general I approve, but I want to mention that there's a difficulty here. The best transitions are either words that have no meaning in that context ("and" is often a safe choice), or words that precisely define the transition. I suspect "however" and "therefore" are on the road to losing most of their previous meanings one of these days, but I still see people being careful and sparing with them in professional writing, using "therefore" to mean something like "it logically or naturally follows or followed" and "however" to mean almost (but not quite) the same thing as "but". - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• I prefer to link "long tons", "knots" and "nautical miles" at the first occurrence in both the infobox and the text (since some readers read one but not the other); does anyone have objections? Apart from linking, I prefer not to get into questions of what and how to convert because my thoughts are more in line with professional publishing (that conversions look awkward in main text) and less in line with WP:MOSNUM. I notice an unconverted "33,000 tons" in the text that you might or might not want to convert. - Dank (push to talk) 18:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree on the link; I'm just not consistent. And 33,000 tons is now converted.
• I'm fine with "Tosa-class battleship", "Tosa class ships", and with having both in the same article, and for me, this is a very small (but annoying) issue. You might be asked at FAC to be consistent one way or the other with the hyphen. - Dank (push to talk) 18:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • As I said in the Sovetsky Soyuz article it should almost always be hyphenated. Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• I notice you reverted me on adding a period to a caption, "per MOS". MOS says: "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely nominal groups (noun phrases, sentence fragments) that should not end with a period. If a complete sentence occurs in a caption, that sentence and any sentence fragments in that caption should end with a period." If we need to reword that to make it clearer, let me know. "Kaga as completed; all three flight decks are visible forward" is not a nominal group, so it needs a period (or rewording, for instance: "Kaga as completed, with all three flight decks visible forward"). - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The current wording is fine. I guess I misremembered.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
    • That's why I make the big bucks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Ah, a three-fer: "Kaga was armed with ten 20-centimeter (7.9 in)/50 3rd Year Type guns; one twin-gun Model B turret on each side of the middle flight deck and six in Model A₁ casemates aft."
  • When I hit the semicolon, I thought: is this because there's a list where the elements of the list contain commas, so you have to separate the elements with semicolons? I had to get to the end of the sentence and add things up to verify that the second half of the sentence contained more information on those guns rather than additional guns, so I traded in the semicolon for a colon here.
  • I'm going to need help knowing what to do with "Model A₁". On the one hand, WP:MOSTM and AP Stylebook are both very skeptical of forcing our typeface to match manufacturers' conventions, because if you gave them the chance, manufacturers would insist that their product always be displayed accompanied by red blinking lights and loud car horns. We have to draw the line somewhere, and WP:MOSTM and AP Stylebook draw the line in approximately the same place: we don't budge an inch. OTOH, material that is mostly aimed at a technical audience tends to follow whatever the technical conventions are; a math article that used an "S" to represent "integral" would just look silly. So: is A₁ a standard nomenclature intended for a technical audience? Would "A-1" look silly? I'm leaning towards MOSTM on this one but it's not my call.
  • Readers get annoyed if they can't even match a picture or a concept to the words you're using. A link would be nice, but I would object if a FAC reviewer required it, for "ten 20-centimeter (7.9 in)/50 3rd Year Type guns", because you don't have to have any idea what a "3rd Year Type" gun is to picture a 20-cm 50-caliber gun. But "Model A₁ casemate", I'm not so sure about; casemates come in all shapes and sizes, and I really have no way of knowing what this thing is or how it functions, without at least a hint, a little more description, or a link. - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I have no information on Japanese casemates, unlike turrets, and have deleted their type.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Per Chicago and per discussions at WT:MOS (I can dig them up if you want), it's "from X to Y" and "between X and Y", not "from X–Y" and "between X–Y". (I made the change.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • You're right and I should spell out the numbers as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• "at the rear of each side of the flight deck": which flight deck? - Dank (push to talk) 23:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Nevermind, I can tell from one of the images.
• Conway (ATWFS, p. 180) says the rebuilding was "from 1934 to 1935", but I used 1933 in the lead earlier based on your information; your information seems more specific, do you want to keep that? - Dank (push to talk) 23:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • 1933 is correct.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Conway also says "... abandoned, she sank when the aviation fuel tanks exploded." Is he 0 for 2 here? - Dank (push to talk) 23:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yep.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted ostensibly; that implies falsehood. The reason given was why the heavy guns were fitted, nothing false about it. But people (the Japanese, Americans and Germans) didn't think it through.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• VMSB-241, VT-6, VS-6 and VB-6 aren't going to mean anything to most readers, so a little description would be helpful, especially since all those links are red. "Torpedo Squadron 6 (VT-6)" would work I think. - Dank (push to talk) 02:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The type of aircraft flown by each squadron is given in close proximity to the unit designations. Do you really think that readers can't make that link?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
• "... shot down all fifteen, leaving only a single survivor treading water." There's an WP:EGG problem here; putting the name of the survivor either in the text or in a note would probably be best. - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• "literally blew out the hangar sides" is a little informal; I made the edit, but got reverted by another editor. "literally" has to go, since it's not likely anyone would think you meant that metaphorically; one option would be "blew out the entire hangar sides". I also got reverted adding "(aviation fuel)" after avgas; it's fine either way, your call. - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • literally is gone; I'm OK with avgas as is since it's linked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
• After all that, I guess I better Support (per the usual disclaimer) or people will get the idea I hated it; you did good, and you know more about copyediting than the typical successful writer. Keep it up. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support with comments. About time we had another birdfarm make the run towards FA :P Just a few observations: not sure if there A-class nitpicky or FA-class nitpicky, so treat with as you see fit.
  • At two sentances, the "Armor" section is probably too small to deal with as a separate section. Maybe roll it into the above section for "Armament and armor"?
    • Done
  • It might be worth describing makeup of the carrier's air group in the text of the article...probably wouldn't need more than a paragraph all up describing what they were, how many, and their roles. You could roll it into a renamed "Flight deck arrangements", which at the moment has hangar details in addition to the flight decks.
    • Unfortunately I haven't found a source for what the air group was like prior to Pearl Harbor.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Are there any other sources that deal with Kaga's role at Midway? Some variety amongst the cites would be nice.
    • Shattered Sword is the best source on the battle yet published.
  • Is there any more information available on searches for the wreck of Kaga? Was the Nauticos search a specific attempt to find the ship, or were they looking for other things and had a "Hmm, that's funny" moment? Were there other attempts to find the wreck?
    • They were doing a general search for the carriers as part of a test of a new acoustic imaging system.
      • A line or two of context to that effect would be a good addition, methinks. -- saberwyn 02:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• More if I come up with any. Brilliant job so far. -- saberwyn 06:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comments I want to support this article, which is very comprehensive, well sourced and well illustrated, but it needs a bit more work:
  • The first sentence suggests that the ship was originally named "Kaga Province" - is this correct?
    • No, the formerly is present because the province is no longer a governmental entity.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that the Japanese carriers at Midway were "ambushed" by American aircraft as is claimed in the introduction - these aircraft searched for and found the ships
    • Good catch--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "designated for scrapping" is a bit confusing - it might be better to say that it was decided to scrap the ships
    • Not sure that is an issue, but whatever. Changed.
  • The sentence which begins "This heavy gun armament was provided..." is uncited
    • Didn't think it needed a cite, but done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Kaga's funnel gases were collected in a pair of long horizontal ducts which discharged at the rear of each side of the flight deck, in spite of predictions by a number of prominent naval architects that they would not keep the hot gases away from the flight deck" should probably be broken into two sentences
    • I don't agree.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Is anything known about the ship's service between 1929 and 1932, and is it possible to say more about her activities in the 1930s?
    • If you find anything more substantial than what I've provided, I'll be happy to incorporate it into the article. Even Peattie doesn't discuss her activities during these periods.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The data on the characteristics of the ship's guns in the article's prose seems unnecessary and greatly disrupts the flow of the article. Material such as "They fired 23.45-kilogram (51.7 lb) projectiles at a rate between eight and fourteen rounds per minute at a muzzle velocity of 700–725 m/s (2,300–2,380 ft/s); at 45°, this provided a maximum range of 14,800 meters (16,185 yd), and a maximum ceiling of 9,400 meters (30,840 ft)" (and many other examples) is heavy going and of marginal value in this article given that it's about an aircraft carrier - this kind of detail belongs in the articles on the guns.
    • Sorry, no. All ships without a class article get this level of detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
      • In my view this kind of material is trivial in this article and renders chunks of it difficult to read, particularly to non-specialists. Moreover, it's not consistent with the FA and A class articles on the carriers HMAS Melbourne and Sydney, both of which were modified so heavily as to be unique ships from early points in their career. In addition it's unclear to me why if this kind of detail is considered necessary on the ship's guns it isn't provided for equally important topics such as the ship's machinery, radar, communications equipment, accommodation and, of course, air wing. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
        • I honestly could care less what's been done on other carrier FAs. My own policy is that all singleton ships get the full technical treatment regarding armament, armor, etc. as there's no other place to put it since there's no class article (the proper home for all that detail). See HMS Queen Mary for an example that simply hasn't made it to ACR yet. And, no, I don't agree that it is best relegated to the gun article, if any. As for the other stuff you mention, I've reached the limits of my sources, or of Japanese technology since no radar was fitted. Again, if I knew what the early air wing consisted of I'd have given that information, but I simply cannot find any references that lists that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
        • It's a reasonable request that we not vary too much on the level of detail that strikes some people as technical. OTOH, I have two objections to this objection: I see similar levels of detail all the time (for instance, in the article I'm busy copyediting at the moment, SMS Blücher). The other objection I think I'll insert into what is turning into an ongoing discussion at WT:MHC. - Dank (push to talk) 04:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The quality of the article's prose is sufficient to meet the A class criteria, but I think that a copy edit would be helpful before this goes to a FAC.
    • Thanks for the comments, but do you have any more detailed criticism than the above? General comments like yours do absolutely nothing towards pointing out issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
      • The whole thing could to with a mild copy edit, but there's nothing that's so bad it justifies being highlighted. Given that this was a suggestion towards changes prior to a FAC I'm a bit surprised by the tone of your response. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
        • You managed to push one of my buttons about copy-edits. Dank was kind enough to go through it with a fine-tooth coomb and I can't find anything objectionable so telling me that it needed one, without providing specifics, is less than useful, IMO. I asked at the start of this ACR for specific suggestions for improvements on the prose, not generic statements. I'm happy to make changes if they're pointed out, but I refuse to get wrapped around the axle in trying to figure out what exactly was meant by general comments as I find it very easy to second-guess myself about my writing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Given that this is an article about an aircraft carrier, I was surprised that it provides very little coverage of the composition of her air wing over time - a section or equivalent on this topic might be justified.
    • See my response to saberwyn's second comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • On that topic, it should be noted that Kaga was the trials ship for the famous Zero fighter in June 1940 (see Sunburst: The Rise of Japanese Naval Air Power, p. 91) Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I didn't think that that was particularly significant, plus there's a problem with the dates. According to Lengerer she's being overhauled that month and June isn't late enough in the overhaul for her likely to be available to conduct said trials.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment Nick-D felt that the article needs copyediting before FAC; I did it once, and I'm going through it again (and not finding that much ... can you point me to anything in particular, Nick?) Only thing I've been reverted on this time around is, I changed: [The hangars opened onto the middle and lower flight decks to allow aircraft to take off directly from the] "hangars, while" [landing operations were in progress on the main flight deck above.] to: "hangars at the same time that". The point is that "while" usually has one of 3 senses, roughly corresponding to "and", "on the other hand", and "at the same time as". My guess was that the last sense was meant here, is that right? - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• • I prefer while, which was used in the 3rd sense. I don't remember reverting that sentence, though it's possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Loosmark reverted me. "While" is fine but only without the comma; I've now fixed it. - Dank (push to talk) 04:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• There are different interpretations of this at WP:LINK: "When possible, avoid placing links next to each other ...". I think the objection you're going to see at FAC is that, in general, Wikipedia readers can probably figure out that if they want to know about "torpedo bombers", and they see a link to Mitsubishi B1M3 torpedo bombers, they can get there by clicking on that link. This is coming up a lot, so I'm checking to see if it's cool with everyone for me to condense two side-by-side links (Mitsubishi B1M3 torpedo bombers) into one. Of course, you can always link "torpedo bombers" somewhere else in the article where it's not right next to another link. - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Can you tell me a little more about the word "bunkerage"? It's not in standard dictionaries (in that sense), most of the 42K ghits are not in that sense, and I can't find a useful Wikipedia link. Could we either define it in context or use a different word? - Dank (push to talk) 00:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It means fuel storage; I've added another entry to the nautical terms glossary for it. But I've changed the wording regardless.
• I don't know why people care about this, but they seem to care: it's a MOS violation to write "30 Zeros, 23 Vals, and 30 Kates" but "twenty-six Nakajima B5N". Either write out every number less than roughly 100 or every number less than 10 (your choice), except for numbers in front of units and a few other exceptions. The most recent conversation was Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_116#WP:MOS#Numbers as figures or words. If you tell me which way you want to go, I'll make the edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Frankly I'm having issues wrapping my head around this sort of petty crap as I was trying to follow the general statement about spelling out quantities at the head of the section while making allowances for the conversion template. Choose one way or another and I'll try to remember which way to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Understood. Although WP:MOS allows either, the cutoff between nine and 10 (which, interestingly enough, has to be written "9 and 10" or "nine and ten" ... go figure) is the heavy favorite. - Dank (push to talk) 04:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment change to Support

• The aircraft totals in the inf box do not add up. 90 total 72 + 18 storage / 18 + 37 + 37 = 92
  • That's why it has a date after the second list, so that you'll know that's the airplane inventory at a different time. Theoretically, everything in infoboxes would be better off with dates since armament and aircraft were always changing, but the sources don't always give a date and we tend not to list it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Also it needs a cite unless I missed it they type and totals of aircraft carried is not covered anywhere in the article.
  • You're the third person to ask. Sturm says: "See my response to saberwyn's second comment." - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• In the service in World War II section - both 9 A6M Zeros and nine A6M Zeros in the first paragraph.
  • See above. It's a judgment call based on this from WP:MOSNUM: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." If two quantities are in the same list, but widely separated, it's hard to say whether that rule kicks in or not. Apart from that and a few other exceptions, we're writing it out for "nine" or less and using numerals for 10 or greater. - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• In the battle of Midway section - sixteen Marine SBD Dauntless dive-bombers - a dozen B-17 Flying Fortress and fourteen Devastators is used should it not be 16, 12 and 14 ?
  • Thanks, fixed. If you see any more, please let me know; we were originally going the other way (writing out most of the numbers less than 100). - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Refs 5, 6, 24 and 29 would appear to need ndash;'s added
  • Only if some of the information came from pages in between. - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• There is also a mixture of ref style used should ref 7 be pp.102–103 not 102–03? same with ref 21,22 and 33
  • Are we looking at the same article? - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Is ref 24 pp. 126, 515 or p. 126 and 515
  • See above. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• This may already have been asked and answered but what makes http://www.navweaps.com reliable.

--Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• • That's currently being discussed at Wikipedia:RSN#http:.2F.2Fnavweaps.com. I asked about this again yesterday in a FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 18:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Air Group While looking to verify the aircraft capacity as per Jim's comment I found the aircraft for the early air group that I'd overlooked before. I've also rewritten the Pearl Harbor section as it seems that I'd confused some of Kaga's and Akagi's targets.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes if you check ref 1 its written pp.185–187 but later on ref 7 is pp.102–03 and the same mixture of style is used throughout --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah now I get it ... you're objecting to "187" vs. "03". I don't see people objecting to that much, but I can change it if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed for consistency's sake.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• 'Support - meets the A-class requirements in my view, though I am undecided on the aircraft naming issue. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:10, 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 00:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Raid at Cabanatuan

Nominator(s): Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review since I believe it meets all of the criteria. The article has already went through the GA process and I would like to get this to FAC at some point. I want to ensure it goes along with the project's MOS requirements and would welcome any comments. Happy reviewing! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comments This is a really good article, but I think that it's first sections need a little bit more work:
  • Why is the fact that US forces were returning to Bataan highlighted in the second para of the lead? This was a relatively minor part of the liberation of Luzon and not near the location of the camp

    The lead is summarizing the whole article, so a one-sentence mention on the background section was included. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

    • • Sorry, but I still don't see the relevance of the liberation of Bataan given that this camp wasn't there and the article doesn't make any connection between this part of the liberation of Luzon and the raid. The body of the article also doesn't state that the prisoners were fearing execution during the liberation of Luzon - it's actually stated (with a supporting citation) that the US Army feared the prisoners would be killed, and not the prisoners themselves. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

        I've added a sourced statement at the end of the "POW camp" section stating that the prisoners were fearful of being executed. In addition, there is further coverage in the last paragraph at the end of the "strategy" section. For a specific link beyond what is already present about their feared possible execution, I can get other sources that focus on the approaching American forces as another reason they were fearful. I believe that the POWs were listening to their radio about the approaching Army and that led to speculation, but I'll need to revisit some library sources as the books I own don't cover it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

        • I've replaced return to Bataan in the lead with return to Luzon, as this appears to be what's meant. Please revert if I'm wrong though. Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit surprised by the claim that "The rescue allowed the prisoners to tell of the death march and prison camp atrocities, which sparked a new rush of resolve for the war against Japan" and subsequent claims that the Japanese were still trying to hide news of the Bataan death march - the Bataan death march and other abuses committed against Allied POWs had been publicised well before 1945

    It was additional viewpoints of more soldiers who survived the march and could continue to add more details on what occurred. The main cause for the new U.S. support was over how the Japanese had treated the prisoners, rather than the march, which was already known. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

  • The first para in the background section presents a very simplistic account of the fall of the Phillipines. In particular:
    • I don't think that the US and Phillipino forces in the Phillipines in 1941/42 were "already stationed in the Philippines as a deterrent against Japanese aggression in the Pacific" - they were there to defend the Phillipines from attack

      I reworded this to specify. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

    • It's irrelevant to state that "However, Roosevelt decided to move the majority of the available troops to the Western Front against Hitler's forces" - in 1942 the US had no way at all of getting soldiers to the Phillipines given Japanese naval and air superiority in the western pacific, and this was understood before the Pacific War broke out. It wasn't until 1944 that this was feasible, and even that was earlier than expected. Moreover, it's not even true that Europe received initial priority for US troops : the first two US Army combat divisions to be deployed overseas were sent to Australia in early 1942 to start preparations for a counter offensive against Japan and much of the US Navy's Atlantic Fleet was sent to the Pacific during the same period.

Removed the statement. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• • A map of the camp and surrounding area would be very useful

    I have planned on adding one for awhile, and hope to get somebody to help develop one. I've scanned several drawings and images of the camps to be compiled into a detailed image. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't think that 'Rangers' and 'Scouts' should be capitalised

    The respective articles capitalize them as do the several books that are sourced to this article. It would seem inconsistent not to do so. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Are the two links in the 'see also' section necessary? Neither seem really relevant to the topic of this article (the raid).

    I removed them for now. Ideally there would be an article about the camp itself and those two would probably be worked into that article. However, since the focus is on the rescue, then they aren't really related. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I'll get to resolving these early next week as I'll be out of town this weekend. Again, thank you, these comments are helpful. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments now addressed Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • no disambig links, ext links all work (no action required);
  • all images except the one in the infobox have alt text, could it be added to this one as well?

    I've already added the alt text, but it looks like the infobox template isn't set up to handle alt text. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

    • I've fixed this, the parameter just needs to go in the image field. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • In the Planning and preparation section "30 miles" (in the third paragraph "30 miles behind Japanese") could have a convert placed on it;

    I didn't include it as it was already mentioned above and seemed redundant to add it again. If it was in a different section, then that would seem to make more sense. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

  • In the Depictions in film section, in the final section the quotation marks have been turned on but haven't been turned off (i.e you have them at the start of the quote, but do not close them);

    Nice catch, fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Rottman should be before Sides in the Bibliography section (alphabetically). — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

    There was a time when I knew the alphabet... Thanks for spotting that. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support: all my comments have been addressed or explained to my satisfaction. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Wow. Stories like this make reviewing these article for A-class assessment totally worth it. Good luck at FAC! TomStar81 (Talk) 18:57, 8 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 07:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Army of the Danube order of battle

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...it looks like it meets the requirements, it fills a wikigap, and it's part of a larger project on the 1799–1800 French and Austrian campaigns in southwestern Germany and northeastern Switzerland. I've tried to deal with the issues raised in peer review, although there was really only 1, and it was regarding the name--Should it be Order of battle of the Army of the Danube, or Army of the Danube order of battle, and since the latter seems less cumbersome than the former, and there was no agreement on the naming conventions of the last discussion of this, I've chosen the latter. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No dab links and external links all work. No images, so alt text and licencing not an issue (no action required);
  • I think there should be a space between the endash in the date in the infobox (e.g. 2 March–11 December 1799, I think should be "2 March – 11 December 1799);

• done

• • In the lead you state that the Army was disbanded in November 1799, but the date in the infobox is 11 December 1799. Is there a reason for this difference?

• It took a while for the units to get to their destinations. And General Turreau remained in command of the army (a paper army) until 11 December

• • I think the endash in the Notes field for the Left Brigade in the Advanced Guard section should be unspaced;

• Okay, but I was using the dash template there, which adds spaces.

• • In the Units field of the Detached Flank in the Advanced Guard section "1st light infantry" - is that a unit name or a type of unit? If it is a unit name it should be capitalised as 1st Light Infantry;

• done

• • Also in these sections should it be "2 battalions" or "two battalions" "one squadron" etc. The MOS usually prefers words for values less than 10;

• changed back

• • Where you have Strength of Advance Guard: "6,292 infantry, 2,102 cavalry..." I suggest using semi-colons to break up the numbers to avoid confusion due to use of commas to denote thousands. E.g. "6,292 infantry; 2,102 cavalry; 392 artillery..." (these would need to be done for all the other tables also if you decide to do it);

• done

• • What date did the Advance Guard cross the Kehl and turn to the northeast? I assume it was 1 March, based on what is said in the lead, but perhaps it could be specifically stated in the main body also?

• everyone started across on March 1, but Divisions II and III had to wait at Kehl until the Advance Guard crossed.

• • In the Units field for Right Brigade in I. Division, should "1st and 4th company" etc. be capitalised? You have "5th Company" capitalised (same in II. and III. Divisions);

• should it be capitalized or not? I suppose yes. done

• • In III. Division you have "2nd dragoons", but should this be capitalised as "2nd Dragoons"? Is it an official unit name?

• done

• • In the Artillery park section you haven't used the commas to denote thousands, although you've done this elsewhere. E.g. "1329" as opposed to "1,329". —AustralianRupert (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• done.. Thanks for reading. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • There's a citation needed tag I added that needs to be addressed.

done.

• • What did the reserve do? It looks a little empty without any associated text while all the other sections have at least a couple lines.

added

• • Also, you've got a summary of the Army's actions, but it's not sourced there or brought up later in the article. This needs to be fixed as well.

moved and cited.

• That's all for now. Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Here's a question: is this supposed to be a list or an article? If the former, I might suggest keeping the summary of the actions that you moved into the body in the introduction. Now both sections look a little lonely, but before you had a pretty solid introduction. This is just me musing, I'm just thinking of how I have List of battleships of Germany organized. Feel free to do what you like. My concerns have been addressed so I'm moving to support. Parsecboy (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    • good point. I moved it back to the lead. I'm not used to having stuff in the lead that needs citations. Added a few other bits I've found. Thanks for support. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support Brief comments
• You've got an inconsistent mix of French and English unit titles. I'd recommend translating all titles into English with odd or hard to translate French titles in parentheses, like Chasseurs à Cheval. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

fixed Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• A few things cleaned up and I left one clarification note. Once that's resolved I'll support.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

already fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • There are no cites for either the inspector generals or the adjutants of the staff section, and only two cites for the general staff section. Are we to infer from this that the two cites are meant to cover the entire section, and if so, are they to extend to the uncited sections as well?

Would you suggest a citation at the end of each line? How should I do this? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I added the information into a table, and cited it as I did the other ones. See if that it satisfactory. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Some of the information in the table in the article is cited, some of it is not. Are we to infer that the uncited information in the table is cited to the book(s) referenced at the bottom of the tables.

That is what this means: Sources: Unless otherwise cited, Roland Kessinger and Geert van Uythoven. Army of the Danube Order of Battle Accessed 14 April 2010.

TomStar81 (Talk) 20:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 23:39, 25 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 05:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Quebec (1775)

Nominator(s): Magic♪piano

This is next in my series of improvements to the Canadian campaign of the American Revolutionary War. I hope it meets with your approval. Magic♪piano 14:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support with respect to FA criteria 1a, 1d, 2a, 2b, 3 and 4. A good article. Doug (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comments:
  • no disambig links, ext links all work, images all have alt text (no action required);
  • images seem to be appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • In the lead, should "reestablished" have a hyphen, i.e. "re-established"?
  • There is some inconsistency in how you deal with numbers. For example, in the Arnold's attack subsection "twenty bodies", but also "30 Americans killed". The Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words generally prefers numbers greater than nine to be depicted with numerals;
  • In the References section Shelton should come before Smith alphabetically (Sh before Sm);
  • The page ranges and date ranges in the References should have endashes per WP:DASH;
  • Please check the format of your citations, # 56 has "pp." but # 57 has "p." — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
    • These are all fixed; thanks for your feedback. Magic♪piano 15:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed, I feel this meets the A class criteria. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Support
  • I have made a few minor edits, please check that you're happy with them;
  • In the 1st para of the 'Siege' section you mention General Wooster at first instance and then later Major General David Wooster, IMO you should write his name and rank in full the first time, and then just use his last name for subsequent mentions. It should also be wikilinked at the first mention (not the second); and
  • Should "counteroffensive" (in last para of 'Siege' section and in the 'Aftermath') be hyphenated?
  • Overall, IMO this is a very good article however.

Anyway that is it from me for now. Anotherclown (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Your edits look fine to me; thank you for taking the time. I've adjusted the links and reference to Wooster and his rank. I'll also note that Wiktionary thinks "counteroffensive" is a word, while "counter-offensive" is not; Merriam-Webster.com accepts both as input, but spells it without a hyphen. Magic♪piano 01:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Cheers. Looks good, adding my support. Anotherclown (talk) 03:07, 31 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 03:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Bombing of Yawata (June 1944)

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

I have recently started this article on the first of many raids on the Japanese home islands conducted by B-29 bombers and think that it may meet the A class criteria. I'm very happy with how the article has turned out, but despite several searches have been unable to find any public domain images of the raid beyond what's in the article at the moment. I am considering taking the article to FA level, and would appreciate any comments on how it could be improved. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- fine work, Nick, just a few fairly minor comments:
  • I presume we really mean United States' Joint Chiefs of Staff (plural not singular) -- in other words it wasn't just one of 'em...? ;-)
    • I've changed this to 'United States Joint Chiefs of Staff' as I don't think that a possessive was needed
  • Pre-FA cmt: prose is generally good IMO but I think you need to do another pass throughout and see where the odd comma mightn't help. For instance in the same (longish) sentence as above, In late 1943 the United States' Joint Chief of Staff approved a proposal to begin the strategic air campaign against the Japanese home islands and East Asia using B-29s based in India staging through airstrips in China there isn't one to be seen; you could probably insert after "In 1943" and again after "East Asia" to break things up a bit. The value of commas after dates is clear in By 15 June 83 Superfortresses -- at first glance it reads like an unspecified number of B29s doing something on 15 June 1983, not 83 B29s doing something on 15 June of an unspecified year...
    • Thanks for those suggestions - I'm planning to leave the text alone for a while and then run through it with an eye to reducing sentance length overall
  • Again pre-FA: something like Early warning of raids was provided by radar stations and network of lookout posts could become Radar stations and a network of lookout posts provided early warning of raids.
    • Done
  • Check US spelling throughout rather than UK, e.g. "defenses" not "defences". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed, I think. Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• SupportComments: Generally a very good article, IMO. I have a couple of comments, most are mainly just suggestions, though:
  • images are all appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • no dab links, all images have alt text (no action required);
  • article is, IMO, well written and logically structured; the references are broad; citations are consistent in style; and it is illustrated with appropriate images (no action required);
  • please check the external link to the Matterhorn Missions, as it times out on me;
    • It works for me and shows up as a working link in the linkchecker tool
  • I found one inconsistency in style for numbers greater than nine. In the Preparations/United States section: "twelve B-29 sorties between India..." as opposed to "98 B-29s". The MOS generally prefers numerals to be used for numbers greater than 9;
    • Thanks - fixed.
  • in the first paragraph of the Raid section, values like "two tons" and "500-pound" bombs could have {{convert}} added to them;
    • I'm not sure how to get the ton conversion to work, and I think that 500 pound bombs didn't have this exact weight.
  • in terms of the abbreviations, you have used "U.S.", but then "USAAF" (no separating dots). Is there a MOS reason for this? I've seen lots of other articles do this, too, so I'm assuming there's a reason for it, but to be honest I think for consistency it should either be "US" and "USAAF", or "U.S." and "U.S.A.A.F.". Thoughts? — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
    • According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations 'U.S.' is the preferred usage for the country when writing in American English, but longer acronyms shouldn't have the periods. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Interesting. Seems inconsistent, but no dramas. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Yeah, it is a bit odd. Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support - two minor points only:
  • Might a couple of columns be used for the notes? and
  • Should the 'the' in 'The Pentagon' be capitalized, seems odd thats all?

Good work IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 16:39, 30 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.

---

Indiana class battleship

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Yoenit (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it passed GA class recently and I think it is ready for A-class now. I will probably be taking this to FAC afterwards, so feel free to nitpick. Yoenit (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with external links or with alt text. Two dab links need to be located and if at all possible removed.
    •  Done Fixed two links pointing to disambiguation pages and several pointless redirects while I was at it.
  • Can you adjust the cost of the plan in the first section to include the cost today when adjusted for inflation? I will not hold this one against you, but it would be interesting to see what the cost would have been.
    •  Done About $6.7 billion.
  • What was the point of having torpedo launching devices on the battleships? Were they designed to counter some sort of threat, or was their purpose more along the lines of 'walking softly and carrying a big gun'?
    • Torpedo launchers were practically standard on early battleships. They don't appear to have ever successfully hit something, but were included anyway. I assume it was just the idea of more weapons = better.
  • In the propulsion section you note that the original engines were switched out, did this include the engines used for the auxiliaries? The article doesn't say but I would like to know.
    • Engines were never switched out, but boilers were replaced. Reilly and Scheina do not mention if they also replace the auxiliary boilers, but looking at their data table I assume not. Auxiliary boilers have no direct effect on a ships speed and their low speeds appear to be the reason for the upgrade, as the faster Oregon kept her original boilers.
  • You need a citation for the information provided in the second footnote. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
    •  Done
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 04:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support per usual disclaimer. I'm doing my usual copyediting; feel free to revert any of the changes, but please tell me if you do. Please fix the problems with units from the Indiana class battleship#Protection section to the end; for instance, "3 inch (76 mm) outside it" (inches), "2.75 inch (70 mm) thick inside" (inches), "14 inch (360 mm) armored bulkheads" (14-inch). Don't use a hyphen when the unit is abbreviated ... hyphothetically, "4 ft ladder", although to be consistent in this article, "4-foot ladder" would probably be better. More to come. - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • •  Done At least, I think so. Stuff like hyphens in abbreviations and feet/foot (which to use as a plural?) is completely new to me, always used the SI system before. Don't happen to know a tutorial which treats that kind of stuff by any chance? Yoenit (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
      • For American English articles, we're fortunate that almost all copyeditors for journalists follow AP Stylebook (by online subscription, or get the book, but wait a month or so for the 2010 edition), and Chicago is persuasive on things that AP Stylebook doesn't cover, and generally in the publishing industry. But I pretty much covered it in the examples above; use a hyphen when "2-foot" is modifying a noun and use "2 feet" when it's not, and don't use hyphens with abbreviated units. "4-inch-thick plating" would be okay, except that we like to convert these units at every occurrence (a decision I disagree with, but that's another story), and "4-inch-(10 cm)-thick plating" would just be silly. - Dank (push to talk) 16:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I see you're going with "17-inch (430 mm) thick barbettes"; that's technically wrong but good enough (because hyphen usage is waning in general in professional American writing). I'll leave it alone. If you're going that way, make an effort not to use the word "thick" whenever "thickness" is implied by context. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, "a 10 inch (250 mm) thick single forging" (best would be "a single forging 10 inches (250 mm) thick", to avoid the impossible "10-inch-(250 mm)-thick"). - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
    •  Done
  • I'm starting to wonder if the word "nominal" has a special meaning in battleship design, because the authors we rely on the most tend to use it a lot. "designed based on the nominal draft" doesn't make sense to me; it sounds like "designed based on the design". - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
    •  Done Is "The placement of the belt armor was based on the design draft" an acceptable replacement? Yoenit (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Ah, wait, now I see, I misunderstood "draft". I've changed it to "... based on the design, which called for a draft of 24 feet ..."; how does that work? - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
          • I think that would change the meaning of the sentence, since the design provided the draft instead of calling for it. I tried something else and went with "The placement of the belt armor was based on the draft from the design, which was..."
  • "she decommissioned, only to be temporarily recommissioned": I think "she decommissioned" is a little jargony, and I'd probably prefer "she was decommissioned", but I've seen it in sources and it's not that bad. But if you're going to use it, I think it would be better to be consistent: "she decommissioned, only to temporarily recommission ..." - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
    • readded the "was" (I am pretty sure it got removed by an earlier copy edit)
      • Hm, gotta love "anyone can edit". Okay, check on the other instances of "commissioned" and "decommissioned", please. - Dank (push to talk) 00:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
        •  Done I missed this reply at first. I fixed four more instances of a missing "was"
  • "re-designated": I changed it to "redesignated", but feel free to revert if the sources seem to insist on the hyphen. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay done. Don't get discouraged by all the edits; in the publishing world, it's not considered the writer's job to catch all that stuff. Again, feel free to revert, but tell me please. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Anything that improves the article is good, so no problem here. Thank you for your very thorough copy edit. Yoenit (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
• One more thing, I've mentioned this in previous ACRs: I don't think we should assume that the reader automatically knows what "the Indianas" means, because that's uncommon jargon outside of naval articles. Per WP:LEAD, if there's another name for "Indiana class battleship" used in the article, it should be bolded in the first sentence, and I made it so: "The three Indiana-class battleships, also known as the Indianas, were ..." - Dank (push to talk) 02:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought about this for quite a while and looked up my sources, but Indianas does not seem to be a commonly used nickname for the class, so I replaced all cases of Indianas with Indiana Class. Yoenit (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Even better. - Dank (push to talk) 14:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Source review - I don't think spanamwar.com is reliable. Otherwise everything looks good. I did have a look at that Scientific American article, but I didn't have my computer with me and I didn't have time to go back in the middle of my exams. Sorry :-/ —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • What exactly is your problem with spanamwar, besides that is a website? The site is neutral, provides sources and seems well established. I have more faith in them than the DANFS, which is blatantly pro-American and does not provide sources. In the ideal world I would have used the sources given on spanamwar, but I don't have acces to any them. Yoenit (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • The difference is that DANFS is an official source, whereas there is no indication that the author of spamawar is a recognized expert in the field. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for more information. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
      • How about this? Spanamwar credits page Yoenit (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, that was unexpected. IMHO it is reliable, although better sources could be used (as you stated at 17:19) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• The lack of consistent conversions within the battleship clique is getting really annoying. But once again: Conversions for nautical miles and knots need the English equivalents of mi and mph respectively. Additionally you're missing conversions in several places.
  •  Done Thank you for your comments. I have corrected the conversions. I only convert units the first time I mention them in a section, especially for things like gun sizes, which are treated as names. If this is not compliant with the MoS, feel free to oppose or change them yourself. Yoenit (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Agree that spamawar is not a good source. If anything, use the books that are referenced there. --Brad (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Excellent Work! Cam ^(Chat) 03:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • As per Brad's comment, the tonnage needs a conversion, and it needs to be specified which ton it is (i.e., short, long, metric).
  • 4,000 tons in the General characteristics needs conversion as well.
    •  Done Circumstantial evidence points to everything being given in long tons. Do I need to convert it to short tons as wel? Yoenit (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
      • As far as I know, the USN always used long tons for ships, but it might be useful to give it in both short and metric. You can just use {{convert|4000|LT}}to give both conversions. Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
        • That template does only give metric tons and {{convert|4000|LT|MT ST}} does not work, despite what is stated in the list of conversions, so I used {{convert|4000|LT|t ST}} Yoenit (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Everything else looks pretty good. As to the spanam.com source, it's probably reliable, but I too would prefer sources of the dead-tree variety. Parsecboy (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The only dead tree source I have is a book of 1898, writen by Schley's son from 1902, written by a journalist about Schley's heroism in the Battle of Santiago de Cuba, but I can probably link most of the text to that book and the first hand accounts of witnesses given on spanamwar, if that would be considered an improvement. Getting hold of a proper dead tree source is gonna be somewhat expensive, as the Spanish-American war is not a topic widely covered in Dutch libraries. Yoenit (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Since there seems to be consensus that dead tree stuff beats Spanamwar, I have tried to relink all citations to Spanamwar directly to the book Schley and Santiago, a witness account from a journalist aboard Schley's flagship. Although rather pro-American I am using it for facts, not opinions. The only thing I still have to link to Spanamwar for is Oregon's nickname, but I can easily spotcheck that by looking at the titles of these books Battleship Oregon: Bulldog of the Navy : An Oregon Documentary and McKinley's Bulldog, the Battleship Oregon. Is there no way I can use the book title as source? Yoenit (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Looks good, I've moved to support. Parsecboy (talk) 21:25, 26 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.

---

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

SMS Hannover

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Yet another German battleship. This was one of the last pre-dreadnoughts built by the Germans, and indeed completed after Dreadnought. I appreciate any and all comments aimed at improving the article. Thanks in advance to all reviewers. Parsecboy (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Parsecboy (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• After SMS Hannover, I added: (German: "His Majesty's ship Hannover"). That seems to be the only approach that everyone likes so far to the problem of answering the first two questions most readers will have (what's SMS, and what or where is Hannover?), but I don't feel strongly about it, I'm just trying to get consensus. - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't have real strong opinions about it either, so it'll work for me. Parsecboy (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I removed the "German:" based on an objection in a current FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Just a reminder that you're welcome to revert anything I do. Also, I can say more or less about reasons for my edits, it's your call. I default to making edits silently, unless I know that there's some issue people might want to hash out (or re-hash or re-re-hash). - Dank (push to talk) 21:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • No problems here. If I ever see anything I have a question about I'll ask. Parsecboy (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• I get a total of two hits for "Reichsmarine" in titles or subtitles of English-language books on Amazon; better to go with "German Navy" or "German Navy of the Weimar Republic" or nothing. - Dank (push to talk) 22:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • How about these 1.5k hits in Google Books? It's about half as much for Kriegsmarine, which is to be expected, given that the KM fought WWII and the RM didn't fight anything. Parsecboy (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm disappointed that Amazon has only two of these. The two Google book searches that do it for me are books in English with "german navy" in the title or subtitle and books in English with "reichsmarine" in the title or subtitle. I had to dig through the results because, sadly, Google's search facility sucks and includes a lot of German books in the second search. The first search did it for me: there were very few books where "German Navy" referred to the Reichsmarine (understandably, they tended to be about the Kriegsmarine or the Imperial German Navy), and the "Reichsmarine" search gave me enough to be able to make a case that this is a well-used term in English sources, and also the more precise term. Thanks for the pointer. - Dank (push to talk) 03:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• "The ship was laid down ... at the Kaiserliche Werft dockyard ...": agreed, use the German words here (because it's a company), and don't italicize (see WP:MOSTEXT and WP:MOS), but some readers will want to know that the company name means "Imperial shipyard", so I added that translation at the link. - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Cool. Parsecboy (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• I generally stay away from issues with units, but I want to pass along that I never see "in" for inches in the main text in publications intended for a general (not technical or targeted) readership; it's confusing. I'll see if I can find something about this in style guides. - Dank (push to talk) 04:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • That makes sense. I fixed the one in reference to the 13.5-inch shell, are there any more? Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't pick up anything searching for _in_ or -in_ so that's probably all of them. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
      • "28 cm (11 in)" is easy enough to understand, and anywhere else where "in" is in parentheses. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• I understand (I think) why your sources consider the ship was "obsolete" when launched ... she was likely to be sunk in a solo protracted battle against HMS Dreadnought, and not able to sink her, so she was obsolete as a capital ship ... but you don't explain it and I think most of your readers won't know. Maybe something like "obsolete as a capital ship, that is, [a little explanation]". With the longer explanation I'm thinking of, the "despite" phrase starting the next paragraph wouldn't be necessary, and I deleted it, but you might still need it, I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I added a line to the intro and a note in the body about the advantages Dreadnought possessed. How does that look now? Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
    • That's better, and it works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• I've made a suggestion at WT:WikiProject_Ships#Units_in_ship_articles on how we present some of the units in the sidebar; I'll come back to this later. - Dank (push to talk) 18:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support per usual disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 21:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • no dab links, ext links work (no action required);
  • the image lacks alt text (but I won't oppose on this, although I'd like to suggest adding it);
  • obsolete and obselescent are slightly different, however, you have "Hannover was obsolete" then "Despite her obsolescence"...(if they were obsolete, it should be "obsoleteness" according to the Macquaurie Dictionary) (in the lead);
  • in the Battle of Jutland section "4:00" (as in ...reached Horns Reef by 4:00 on 1 June") should be "04:00" for consistency;
  • in the World War I section, I'd like to suggest adding the following clause to the first sentence: "Following the outbreak of World War I, Hannover was tasked..." I feel this would improve the narrative flow (but it is only a suggestion);
  • in the World War I section I think "8" (as in 8 pre-dreadnoughts) should be "eight";
  • in the World War I section, should "mining operation" be "minelaying operation"?
  • in the Battle of Jutland section, Grand Fleet is linked for a second time (it was already linked in the section above);
  • in the Later actions section, the second sentence seems to be missing a word (Hannover the rest of II...);
  • in the Postwar section, "most modern components of Germany's surface fleet was..." (should it be "was" or "were"?)
  • some ISBNs have hyphens and others don't
  • in the References section the Herwig and Williamson sources should have endashes for date ranges in the titles;
  • is there a source for Note # 1;
  • Citations # 21 and 22 are to the same source (Tarrant, p. 195) and could be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS (you've done this for a few others already). — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the thorough review. I think I've got everything you pointed out. Parsecboy (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• No worries. Looks good. I think there is still one outstanding, though: have you got a citation for Note # 1? — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Ahh, yes, I've added it now. Thanks for reminding me. Parsecboy (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support One point for consideration though: many of the battle engagements cited in the Jutland section only give units in metric, and I for one can not think in metric. It may therefore be a good a good idea to add conversions for the sizes given in the section so the standard crowd can grasp what weapons were fired. Also, what classifies a vessel as a guard ship? The guns were removed but was anything added in their place? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I usually only convert the first instance of a unit (especially for frequently repeated figures like the main battery guns) and then leave them with just the metric.
  • Only some of the guns were removed, but Staff isn't clear as to which guns. Groner states that in Reichsmarine service the ship retained its 28cm and 17cm guns, so I'd wager it was the 8.8cm guns that were removed, but I wouldn't add that without something stating as much. Parsecboy (talk) 21:31, 25 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 02:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

William Ellis Newton

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Took this article on the only Victoria Cross recipient flying with an RAAF squadron during World War II to GA some time ago, but always had A/FA in my sights. Hope this recent expansion employing his sole biography and that of a comrade, Charles Learmonth (another article on the horizon!), does him justice. Any and all comments welcome... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• There's an inconsistency with the spacing after p/pp. YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 00:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Heh, thought I got all those -- some search tool...! Anyway, should be all done now -- tks for your mods, and for the Perry scans long ago -- told ya I'd get round to taking the article to the next level some time... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support ... I should put in a request for Keith Truscott and Stan Sismey YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Tks mate. Dunno why but Bluey doesn't capture my imagination the way the others have, however I'm on a bit of a roll with Australian aces (including rugby player Nicky Barr to GA just lately) so you never know... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Admittedly, I'd like to see the former given a decent article, too (nudge, nudge). ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments - excellent article, just a few points:

• "playing cricket at youth state level" - the placement of youth just doesn't sound right to me. Could this be changed to "playing cricket at state level in his youth"?
  • Possibly one for YM to weigh in on...
    • To be fair I'm not sure why we have to qualify as "youth state level". Would've thought that playing in the Victorian Second XI still counts as "state level" -- or does "state level" always imply "first class", YM? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Don't think this is to much of a big deal, but the information on his parents and siblings is slightly misleading in that Minnie was Charles Newton's second wife (his first having died), and Bill's three siblings were actually half-siblings from Charles' first marriage; Bill was Minnie's only child.
  • I was getting a bit concerned that the early life section was becoming too involved, but since then I've split the previous large section into two so probably fair to point this out. One thing is that I don't have the bio on hand so if you have your copy handy you'd be doing me a favour by confirming that the refs for this bit are in the pp.1-6 range... ;-)
    • Covered in the first two prargraphs of page 1. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• On the bit regarding Newton's commission and gaining his wings, the date is given but no year. I presume it was 1940, but it might be an idea to clarify that as no year is previously given in that paragraph either.
  • Yep, dead right, this is the result of splitting up what had become a large single para -- will do.
• Same as above in the first paragraph of the "Attacks on Salamaua" section, and again in the "Revelations and reactions" section.
  • Yep, agree, fair enough to repeat the year once we're in a new (sub)section.
• There were aircraft sent out to search for Newton's aircraft after it had crashed, as mentioned in his biography, which might be worth adding in.
  • Again fair enough, can I trouble you to confirm the page ref for that?
    • Pages 64-65: several of the aircraft formed a "defensive circle" around the downed bomber, in which two were seen to swin clear (though they did not think Newton was one of them), while one returned to base to inform Hampshire; the remainder were later forced to return, also, due to lack of fuel. Another sortie was immediately dispatched to recover the pair who were last seen swimming for shore, but they were not discovered. Also in this range, it discusses how Newton and Lyon, on reaching the shore, were led into the jungle by "two friendly natives" towards the location of an Australian Coastwatcher. For some reason, however, they decided to turn around and head back towards the coast and were captured by the Japanese patrol. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Pretty good here, but could the fact that they were meant to be heading towards the location of an Australian Coastwatcher be added in, as it seems to be a rather notable facet? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
        • No prob. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• In case you wanted further details on Newton's time in the militia, he served as a private in the machine gun section of the 6th Battalion, Royal Melbourne Regiment (Weate p.15). Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, why not -- ta. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Tks Bryce. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Tks again mate, worked most or all of that stuff in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
    • All good, so change to support. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Tks for your help, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I couldn't find anything lacking in this article. For the purposes of the review, these are my comments:
  • there are no dab links, external links all work and images all have alt text (no action required);
  • images are all appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • the article is comprehensive, well written, structured, referenced in a consistent and appropriate style, and supported with suitable supporting materials (no action required). AustralianRupert (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Tks for your thorough check, mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:59, 21 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.

---

SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand

Promoted, Woody (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk), Parsecboy (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it meets all of the criteria. It's amply referenced, covers all of the main points and most details, and is gramatically correct with pictures to break up text flow. I'm going to put this through FAC soon, if time permits. I'll inform Parsec Buggie111 (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Query, is Parsec a co-nom due to the edit count? If so he should add his name above. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
• I've asked him on his talk, as I don't want to be "forging" sigs. Buggie111 (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'll add myself as a co-nom. Thanks for letting me know. Parsecboy (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Now, as to the article itself, it is rather short (13kb or so in length), but it's about as comprehensive as it can get. The ship (and the Austria navy as a whole) didn't see much action during the war, so there isn't a ton to say about the service history. Parsecboy (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Ah, nicely done: "SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand (German: "His Majesty's ship Archduke Franz Ferdinand") was ..."; I should have thought of that when reviewing the other SMS articles. It makes sense to translate Erzherzog, so why not throw in SMS while you're at it? That's more compact than making a separate note for SMS. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Where do you suggest putting that?Buggie111 (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    • You already did that; I'm saying that's a great choice that I hadn't thought of in previous articles. - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
• There's nothing wrong with "Work on the ship had been delayed by two strikes in 1908 and 1909, by welders and riveters, respectively." But if you want my advice on tone, "respectively" sounds a little old-fashioned, unless you really need it. This would work: "Work on the ship had been delayed by a welders' strike in 1908 and a riveters' strike in 1909." - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I concur with you. Buggie111 (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
• More free advice, it's your lucky day: nothing wrong with "A month and a half after her launch, on October 22, ...", but when you do the same thing two more times in the same paragraph (telling us how many months it is from one date to another), that's a bit much. We're not aiming the articles at readers who have to be reminded that October comes after September. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I again concur. Buggie111 (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• You probably know better than I do, but doesn't "casemated single mounts" sound better than "casemate single mounts"? - Dank (push to talk) 03:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed (your part of WP:OMT, you know just as much) will add later. Buggie111 (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
• Although it's not covered by WP:MILMOS or WP:MOSSHIP, every Wikipedia article I've seen on ships has followed the day-month format. I notice dates are being changed during this review to month-day; is everyone okay with that? - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I prefer day-month, but the majority of the article was month-day, so I changed it to conform. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
• I think it's an open question how far we want to extend the metaphor that a ship is a "she". I don't have any objection to using "whose", since "the X of which" can sound stilted, but I'd prefer "which" to "who" in "two German ships stationed in the Mediterranean who were attempting to break out ..." - Dank (push to talk) 13:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • K. Buggie111 (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support per usual disclaimer, and I made the changes mentioned above, along with my usual copyediting. I think you're going to get opposition over the month/day format, and even though I understand why the article is shorter than some A-class articles, there's a chance you'll get opposition on that basis. - Dank (push to talk) 18:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Support Would it not be better to have the painting of the actual ship in the infobox, rather than an image of the sister ship? I appreciate they were near identical, but it just seems a bit.... odd. Ranger Steve (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, my view is the picture is preferable for the infobox image because the painting is pretty fuzzy and hard to make out. The picture gives a much better idea of what the ship looked like. Parsecboy (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Some further points:
  • There are a few niggles with prose relating to how the ship is addressed. For instance the term "the ship" is used five times in just seven sentences in the lead. Later on it is a little overused again, and then the ship is referred to twice by name in two sentences at the start of the Service History.
    • Will try to standardize.
  • The link to Franz Ferdinand at the start of WW1 is good, but I feel the namesake should have been mentioned earlier in the prose (although its worth keeping the relationship at the start of the WW1 section).
    • Moved. Buggie111 (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "The first seaplanes to be used in combat..." Is this the first ever recorded use? This is quite an interesting fact that would benefit from a bit more detail.
    • I think it is. I'll check later. Buggie111 (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
      • All fine, see this. Buggie111 (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Other than that, it looks good! Ranger Steve (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've switched to support. A few things though - the infobox and prose aren't consistent about the date of launch. I'll assume the prose is correct as its referenced and agrees with my copy of Jane's fighting ships of WWI. With regard to the image, I thought that might be the case. I don't really fully agree with having an image of a different ship in the lead when another is available, but it isn't a deal breaker. That said though I think it would be an issue if you decide to go to FAC (there is an image in my copy of Janes, but it isn't very good). Buggie, I'm afraid the google books link isn't loading for me, but I can guess its good stuff! Ranger Steve (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In case it helps, there are a few images of the ship on the net that must be public domain I'd have thought. I bow to anyone else who knows about copyright etc... though. Here and here. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It all depends on when the photos were published and/or who took them and when they died. Since we don't have any of that information yet, we can't prove they're in the public domain. Parsecboy (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspected as much (wasn't sure about the Flickr one though. Best of luck, it's nice to see a short article meet A class. Gives me hope! Ranger Steve (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

THere's some images of Erzherzog herself on the other wiki languages, but they don't come through when I paste them in . Buggie111 (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably because they're on those wikis rather than wikicommons. They look inviting though, but I'll leave it for someone else to decide if they're ok to use. Ranger Steve (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • no dab links, ext links all work, all images have alt text (no action required);
  • Are you able to add a date of death for the author to File:Erz ff colorcard.jpg? The licence states "life of the author plus 70 years", but doesn't state specifically when the author died so people can confirm the 70 years have passed. I'd suggest that if you know his date of death that you should include this in bracket beside his name to remove any ambiguity;
    • He died in 1939. I've added that to the image page. Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Actually, now that I think about it, according to the URAA, the image may not be PD in the US, which is a problem. It's unquestionably PD in Europe, but we need to know the publication date for the card. The issue is, according to the URAA, any work that was not PD on 1 January 1996 had its copyright extended, based on the year of publication. If it was before 1923, it's still PD, but if it was 1923-78, it's 95 years from the date of publication. After 1978 the copyright reverts to 70 years after the death of the author. So we need to make sure it was published before 1923 for us to be able to use it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Which, incidentally, is why we can't use many of Willy Stöwer's excellent paintings... Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
          • The cityofart website states that it was painted in 1908.; sorry for making assumptions, but back then, it was published as soon as it was realeased. Buggie111 (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
            • Alright, can we get a direct link to the photo page with the date on it? Right now it's just the generic cityofart link. I'm making a big deal about this because I want to have our bases covered when we go to FAC; image reviews can be a pain in the neck if the copyrights aren't crystal clear. Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
              • As direct as I can get. Buggie111 (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • there is some variation in the format used for dates in the article. You mostly seem to use "Month Day, Year", but I found a couple that use "Day Month Year", e.g in the Construction section "...later on 15 January 1911, and...on 15 September";
    • Fixed. I suppose that's an effect of two different people writing the article (I generally prefer "day month" myself). Are there any more like that? Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References section, ref # 4 (Austrian Battleship Ashore) needs an accessedate, also its date format is different to the "Retrieved 8 September 2009" in ref # 14;
  • in the Bibliography section I think that the title of the Vego source isn't capitalised correctly. I think it should be "Austro-Hungarian Naval Policy, 1904–14";
    • Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Bibliography, both the Hore and Ireland sources have hyphens in the ISBN, but the others don't have hyphens, these should probably be consistent. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • The service history is understandably a bit short. Of course as you point out above the ship (and the Austrian navy) didn't see much action during the war which explains this. Again I note that you touch on this in the article but could you possibly expand (ever so slightly) on this? Specifically why did they remain in port after the raid on Ancona? I myself have no knowledge on this aspect of WWI and it may aid other readers also. This isn't a war stopper for me though and if you don't feel this needs to added I have no dramas with that;  Done
    • I should be able to get to this tomorrow sometime. Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I have reworded a couple of sentences so please check my work and change any you don't agree with; and  Done
    • Looks fine to me. Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Could 'frogmen' (in last section) be wikilinked? Might be helpful.  Done
    • It certainly can. Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
• Suport - Overall this article easily meets the A class criteria IMO. Top work. Anotherclown (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Always loved the Radetzkys! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support But I do note that your lead image could do with alt text. Otherwise, all the I's are dotted and all of the T's are crossed. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It has it, and it works on my comp. Buggie111 (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support my concerns have been addressed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support I'll support this, however, I have some questions. Sorry to throw in a wrench this late in the game. I have a couple of prose questions... and you know that there will be prose questions at FAC.

"After returning to Pola, the entire fleet was mobilized for possible hostilities" What does this mean? There was an imminent threat? From whom? and what was it about? (actually, I think I know, but I also think it should be in here).

Frequent incidences of 5 words when one or two would work well. For example: That night, a severe storm caused her to break loose from her moorings. That night, she broke lose from her moorings in a severe storm. OR She broke loose from her moorings that night in a severe storm. She was completed by June 5, 1910, when she was commissioned into the fleet. She was completed by June 5, 1910 and was commissioned into the fleet. Among the ships from other navies were the British pre-dreadnought HMS King Edward VII, the Italian pre-dreadnought Ammiraglio di Saint Bon, the French armoured cruiser Edgar Quinet, and the German light cruiser SMS Breslau. Ships from other navies included the British pre-dreadnought....etc.

that whole paragraph on the sea planes, plus Serbia and Montenegro sentences, is confusing.

The ship was named after Archduke Franz Ferdinand, whose assassination brought on the outbreak of World War I... You could say ... whose assassination triggered WWI....

when the war started, the ship was mobilized? What does that mean? Taken out of mothballs? staffed and crewed? Prepared for combat?

At 20:00 on May 23, 1915, four hours of the Italian declaration of war reached Pola, Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand, her sister ships, and the rest of the fleet departed Pola to bombard the Italian coast.... First, shouldn't read "after" instead of "of"? Second, why is Pola linked on the third mention, instead of first ( a few paragraphs earlier)? At 20:00 on 23 May 1915, four hours after the Italian declaration of war reached them, the fleet left Pola to bombard the Italian coast.

• made a few tweaks here. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It sounds awkward to refer to EFF, her sister ships, and the rest of the fleet. Can we say the Fleet?

How big was the fleet? (did I miss that?) Most readers don't know diddly about an Austrian navy, other than what they heard in the Sound of Music. So my guess would be that there needs to be some minor background. Just a thought.Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll tackle those. What did SOM say? Buggie111 (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

My bad. Parsec has fixed them. Buggie111 (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Who is SOM? Still don't know much about the fleet, generally. And there doesn't seem to be an article on it. This article disagrees with Habsburg article...Admiral wants to husband his fleet so he uses mines etc (in this article). In Habsburg article, there is a shortage of coal. Is it both? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's both. And SOM is Sounnd of Music. I thought it was a weird comment. Buggie111 (talk) 00:50, 14 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.

---

Deutschland class battleship

Promoted Woody (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

I rewrote this article at the beginning of the month, it has since passed GA, and I feel it meets the requirements for A-class. This article will eventually make its way to FAC, so please feel free to nitpick :) Thanks in advance to all editors who take the time to review this article. Parsecboy (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The sentence "the five Deutschland class ships came to the aid of the mauled battlecruisers of the I Scouting Group when the Deutschlands intervened and prevented the British battlecruisers under Admiral David Beatty from pursuing the German ships" seems too long to me. I think there should be another comma, or even a full stop, in there somewhere. Otherwise, I don't see anything big. - The Bushranger (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Parsecboy (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Support. - The Bushranger (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Questions and nitpicks:

• Toolbox: No disambig links, external links are all good, all images have alt text.
• Lead image: The infobox image carries the caption "Deutschland class battleships in line", but I count at least nine vessels, as opposed to the five ships in the class. Could the caption be tweaked to clarify?
• In the "Machinery" and "Armament" sections, the capabilities of Deutschland are less than her later sister ships. Was there a particular reason or impetus for the improved propulsion system and thicker armour?
• In "Inter-war years", the last sentance states that the ships were replaced in active service by "newer ships"...do you know what ships these were?
• The "World War II" section states that Schleswig-Holstein was sunk in shallow water in December 1944, but continued to serve as a glorified coastal battery until gutted by a fire. When was the fire?
• What happened to the hulks of Schleswig-Holstein and Schlesien after they became immobilised? -- saberwyn 13:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

More observations as I come up with them. Very well done so far. I'm happy to call it a support. -- saberwyn 03:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• • The ships nearest the observer are the Deutschlands. I'm not quite sure what to add to make that clear. Any ideas?
    • Its a pity the Bundesarchiv caption doesn't give us more to work with. You could do something along the lines of "Deutschland class vessels leading a line of German battleships"? -- saberwyn 13:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Yeah, the Bundesarchiv captions often leave a lot to desire, and in some cases, they're just flat wrong. Take this one mistakenly identified as the cruiser Gneisenau; it's very clearly a Roon-class armored cruiser. But as to this photo, the ships are steaming away from the observer, so it'd be "bringing up the rear" or something similar. I tried a note; how does that look? Parsecboy (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm happy. -- saberwyn 06:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I haven't seen any explanation. All Staff says is The first ship of the class, Deutschland, was almost identical in every way to its predecessors...After Deutschland, however, the remaining ships of the Deutschland class were built to a modified design (p. 5), but no explanation as to why. I would imagine the design staff was incredibly overworked; Groner says that the Braunschweig design was completed 1900-01, the design for Deutschland followed in 1901-02, and the design for the other four ships in 1902-1903. A year seems like a long time, but I don't know if it's long enough to first do all the design work and then conduct all the testing needed to make sure the new ship doesn't pull a Vasa on its maiden voyage. That's just my assumption though.
    • It might be worth adding a line to the "Design" or "General characteristics" section using the little info provided by Staff and Groner (i.e., while the design for Deutschland was completed in 1902, the design was modified over the following year for the other four ships, particularly the engines and armour). On a related note, are the characteristics in the infobox for Deutschland or the other four...it might be worth noting. -- saberwyn 13:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I reworked the design section to include this information. The only thing in the infobox that is part of the difference between the ships is the belt armor thickness. In the infobox its the figure for the later four ships. I added a note to clarify this. Parsecboy (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
        • What about the propulsion horsepower figure? The infobox says 17,000, but the body says Deutschland was rated at a thousand less. -- saberwyn 06:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Good call, I added another note for this one. Parsecboy (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I added a note explaining this.
    • Cool -- saberwyn 06:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Williamson doesn't give a time period on the fire, but he does say that the crew was then taken ashore to assist in the defense of Marienburg; according to that article the battle was in early 1945 up to March, so it wasn't all that long between the sinking and the fire. Maybe a month or two. Parsecboy (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Do you think we could get the phrase "Within a couple of months of the bombing, a fire permanently disabled the ship, and her crew...", or would that be too close to OR? -- saberwyn 13:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I would hesitate to add anything without a clear indication in the source. Parsecboy (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. -- saberwyn 06:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It very much looks like Class A in my opinionSteven1969 (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: OK, this is bizzare. The link in note 5 for the later Deutschland class (the panzerschiffen) is a redlink. But when you click on it you get the correct article despite this...?? never mind, a tweak to the sclass code fixed it. - The Bushranger (talk)

That's odd, it was a redlink as Deutschland-class heavy cruiser (I hadn't looked at the target article when I put that in) and then when I changed it to Deutschland-class cruiser it worked fine for me. All's well that ends well though, right? Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Can we get citations for the notes in the article? At the moment only the last one has a source for the material present, and that concerns me.
  • The last part of the World War II section fails to provide the fate of the battleship Schlesien beyond noting that she sunk 3 April. Can we assume that she too was broken up, or was she destroyed by the allies/captured as a war prize? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comments:
• in the infobox the date ranges for Built and In commission use emdashes when they should be endashes per WP:DASH;
• in the Construction section, this sentence is missing something: "Although she was launched on 29 September 1905 and commissioned on 1 October 1907" (something like "Although she was launched on 29 September 1905, she was not commissioned until...)
• in the World War II section, I suggest wikilinking "RAF" as it is not mentioned earlier and some readers might not know what it refers to;
• in the World War II section, in the last sentence, I suggest changing the first instance of the word "artillery" to "guns" to avoid repitition;
• in the References section a couple of the titles don't have endashes for date ranges: Herwig, Newton, Williamson. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I think I've got everything you mentioned. Thanks for your help! Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

SupportOppose

• Link to the Danish Belt.
  • Done. Parsecboy (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
• Hasn't Whitley covered these ships in one of his books? If so, then it might have some more detail on their history under the Nazis.
  • Do you mean this book? He only mentions the pocket battleships, not the predreadnoughts. Parsecboy (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Ahh, you probably mean this one, but from the abstract in google books it also doesn't cover the pre-dreadnoughts. Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
• I think some more details of their activities during WW2 are in order. Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea would be the place to start.
  • They didn't really do all that much during the war though. The most notable thing was S-H shelling Westerplatte; Schlesien spent a good chunk of the war sitting in harbor or ice-breaking. Parsecboy (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
    • About the only thing that Rohwer lists that you didn't have covered was Schlesien's fire support mission between 15 and 21 March 45, which I've added for you. For some reason I'd thought that there were trips to the English Channel for both ships, but no mention in Rohwer.
      • Thanks for adding that for me. Parsecboy (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• And some more details as to which operations they participated in during WWI would be useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I generally prefer to keep the service history sections in class articles fairly short. I see class articles as being primarily technical articles with a short overview of the service histories of the ships, and the individual articles vice versa. See, for example, Moltke class battlecruiser. The idea is I'd like there to be as little overlap as possible between the content of the class and individual articles so they're not just duplicating information. Parsecboy (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I probably put too much into my class articles although I do tend to try and summarize the action instead of laying it all out in detail. But that's just me.
• You've got a problem with Williamson, he's wrong on the date of sinking of Schlesien. Groener and Rohwer agree on 3 May, not 3 April. And Rohwer doesn't mention any further fire support missions by her before her sinking.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I fixed the date (supported by Conway's as well). I cut out the fire support bit though. Parsecboy (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support - two minor comments though:
  • in the lead you write that the German Navy was allowed "to retain several old battleships, including the four Deutschland-class ships" under the Treaty of Versailles. This seems to contradict the corresponding paragraph in the Inter-war years section where you wrote: "Following the German defeat in World War I, three of the Deutschland class battleships were allowed to be retained in the German Navy"; and  Done
  • the phrase 'prohibitively enormous strain' in the Design section seems a little like hyperbole, maybe reword?  Done

Anyway thats it from me. Good work. Anotherclown (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing the article. I clarified the intro and removed "enormous" from the line you mentioned. Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 9 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.

---

Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

102nd Intelligence Wing

Nominator(s): Lineagegeek (talk)

102d Intelligence Wing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Previous A-class Review

Reviewing this article to determine the accuracy of a bot generated request to review links, I noted that several paragraphs lack references (partly, not entirely, due to link rot), so the article no longer meets even B Class criteria). It, therefore, needs a new review. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments: I made a few tweaks to try to rectify some of the issues that I found, but unfortunately can't help with other aspects. If these can be rectified, I am of the opinion that the article could retain its A-class status, otherwise it should unfortunately be demoted: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• there are numerous paragraphs that do not end in references, which is as noted above the main issue for this article to overcome
• in the References, the Williams source - is there a specific article within the journal that relates to the unit? If so, this should be added to the citation
• what makes the Middleton website reliable?
• for the Rogers citation (currently # 16) is there a page number that could be added?
• currently, I think the article potentially has too much room devoted to the 9/11 incident, when compared to the space devoted to other topics, so I think it might be best to reduce this a little
• "File:Too-102fw.jpg": is there a link to a website where this was obtained from? Currently the only source is "US Defense Department".
  • Delist/demote: it doesn't appear that these issues will be resolved, so I think it best that the article be delisted as an A-class article for the time being. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• History:

"The 102d Intelligence Wing traces its roots to the 318th Fighter Group" The cited source does not support this statement (and without an idea of what "traces its roots" means it may be inaccurate. The 318th Fighter Group became the 102d Fighter Group, which is not the 102d wing, but a subordinate unit. The article as a whole confuses the group and the wing and compounds it by stating that the wing was also "previously the 69th Fighter Wing". Later the articles refers to the 67th Fighter Wing, but the three fighter units were not assigned to it, but to the 102d Fighter Group. One of the squadrons as well as other units listed are not supported by the cited reference (probably in part because one fighter squadron was in the Connecticut National Guard and the source is a Massachusetts National Guard website). This kind of sloppiness permeates the article. I question whether either B1 or B2 would pass a B class review.

"Guard units were generally neglected . . . Not supported by cited source (although this could be edited to do so)

Although the MA ANG wasn't mobilized for the Korean War. Per source cited, elements of it were, but not the 102d Wing (which was only established in 1950), so this is extraneous information. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment, leaning to delist/demote -- I concur that without reliable sourcing for the uncited elements this can't remain A-Class, and since there's still a lot outstanding after almost three weeks (the USAF isn't my area of expertise unfortunately) I don't hold out much hope for this one... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment I don't think even one book from in the Bibliography section was ever referenced in the text. Please either change that section header to "Further reading", or delete the section. I very strongly urge the latter, since we have little way of knowing whether these sources provide meaningful amounts of useful/relevant information.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2016 (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.

---

Promoted. Ranger Steve (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Russian battleship Slava

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I believe that it meets all the criteria.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Generally seems fine to me, although I don't have the expertise to discuss the content really (it seems complete to me, though). A couple of comments for the review:
  • there was one dab link to "Capstan", but I've fixed it;
  • ext links all work according to the tool;
  • the images don't have alt text and while it is no longer a requirement, I'd like to suggest adding it (but it won't affect my support);
  • I made a few tweaks myself, please revert if you don't agree with any of them;
  • the images all seem appropriately licenced, although the Russian copyright law is very confusing to me, so I might wrong;
  • in the Footnotes "McLaughlin, p. 299" (Citations # 11 and 14) could be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS as you've done this already for McLaughlin p. 146;
    • Good catch, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Battle of Moon Sound section, I think that the times could be clarified by adding "am" to them per Wikipedia:MOS#Times.AustralianRupert (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. - The Bushranger (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Generally very well written and easy to follow for a technical subject. A few comments:
  • I rewrote "anti-torpedo boat guns" as "guns used against torpedo boats", and I want to explain why this isn't just a rehash of the "Queen Elizabeth-class ships" discussion on hyphen usage. I don't see how a reader can be confused by the latter, but a general reader who doesn't already know what you're talking about might read "anti-torpedo boat guns" to mean "boat guns used against torpedos". A common solution 20 years ago would have been to add a hyphen ("anti-torpedo-boat guns"), but this now looks wrong to enough readers that I prefer to just write out what we mean. - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm OK with this, although I'd use my original phrasing if I was addressing a more knowledgeable audience.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer "listing" to "heeling". Every technical field uses lots of metaphors, but the metaphors should be avoided if the general reader might get the wrong idea, and I think there's a chance that people will read the original (and usual, per Google) meaning of "listing because of wind pressure" here, rather than "listing when making a sharp turn". (If heeling really has completely lost the original meaning, then there's no problem here, but the first 50 hits in a Google search suggested otherwise.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Heeling is not a metaphor; it's what ships do when they turn, just like body roll in a car when it turns. Whereas ships list when they take on water, either through damage or voluntarily as Slava did to increase the elevation of her guns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
      • My approach is to use dictionaries, and if they don't say anything definitive (Merriam-Wester doesn't even list the word in this sense), then I try skimming 50 or 100 Google searches. That's hard at the moment because I'm on a slower connection; I'll give it another look when I get home. - Dank (push to talk) 18:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Okay, Webster's New World is fine with this. - Dank (push to talk) 05:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I generally avoid issues of unit conversions, but do you want 5 significant digits here? "23,000 yards (21,031 m)" - Dank (push to talk) 18:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Since it's an approximate range, it's kinda pointless. Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Any objection to Kronstadt rather than Kronshtadt, following the spelling used in the article on that city? - Dank (push to talk) 18:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
    • None.
  • Any objection to "shell splinter damage" in place of "splinter damage")? - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Not really, although damaged by shell splinters would probably be a better phrasing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm undecided about the use of the German "sharp S" (ß). Several ships editors like to use it, and even use it in article titles. AP Stylebook rejects all but a few non-English characters, so you'll rarely see it in American newspapers. Per languages of the United States, "According to the 2000 US census, people of German ancestry make up the largest single ethnic group in the United States", and "German was widely spoken until the United States entered World War I" (including in my own state, North Carolina, btw), so it doesn't seem "neutral" to me to omit a common character in the German alphabet but allow almost all the French and Spanish diacriticals. Still, most English-language sources do omit the "sharp S". I'll leave it up to you guys. - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Feel free to revert any of my edits, but please let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 00:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support - one minor quibble though: I generally prefer at least 2 paragraphs in the intro, if possible. Parsecboy (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I split it, although the first paragraph is pretty short.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Maybe you could add some very basic technical stuff, like length, number of main guns, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support Would prefer to see alt text, but I will not hold this against the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:52, 30 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 03:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Action of 1 August 1801

Nominator(s): XavierGreen (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because i believe it meets the requirements of a A-class article. XavierGreen (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I have copyedited this article to bring it into compliance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines with regards to referring to ships in the possessive form as well as the use of "the" before the name of a vessel. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!XavierGreen (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • no dab links, ext links all work, alt text is present (no action required);
  • in the Background section please check this sentence: " Flying British colors as a ruse, the Enterprise was able to approach close to her and hail her as to her." (I'm not sure what "hail her as to her" means. Is it missing something?);

I fixed this, foolish mistake on my part lol.XavierGreen (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• • what's a corsair? Could it be wikilinked? Also, sometimes the Tripolitan ship is called a corsair and at other times a polacre. Is there a difference? Sorry, if this is silly question;

Corsair is just a generic term for a raiding vessel, i removed most of the reference to it but kept one and wikilinked it.XavierGreen (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• • in the Background section, Enterprise should be in italics in this sentence "At this the Enterprise struck the British colors, raised the American flag, and prepared for action";

FixedXavierGreen (talk)

• • in the Battle section, I suggest wikilinking "musket", as the layman might not know what this is;

Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• • in the Battle section, I suggest adding the clause: "...indicating that she wished to surrender" to this sentence: "Severely damaged, Tripoli struck her colors". I know that you've wikilinked it, but if a casual reader may not want to click the link to find out what the term means as it interupts the flow of the writing;

I added a clause to clarify this.XavierGreen (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• • in the Battle section, the wikilink for grappling hook, which has been piped with grappling, should be removed and replaced earlier in the section when you first mention "grapple";

Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• • there is some inconsistency in style used for the number of guns a ship has. For instance in the Background section you have "twelve gun, 135 ton schooner", then in the Aftermath section "22-gun vessel". These need to be consistent;

There is no inconsistency, the Tripoli's commander tried to pass off that he was defeated by a 22 gun french vessel when challenged by the USS President in order to save face and conceal the fact that his vessel really had been mauled by the USS Enterprise.15:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I must not be making myself clear. The inconsistency that I'm talking about is in the style used in the article. I'm not asking for clarification about the sentence in which it appears. I'm also not saying there is a mistake in the number of guns, i.e. that the twelve and 22 refer to the same ship. I understand they refer to different ships. What I am saying is that you use words to say "twelve", then you use numerals to say "22" (as in the number of guns a ship has). Per Wikipedia:MOS#Numbers, for consistency values greater than nine should be rendered as numerals, while those less than nine should be spelt. There is some flexibility in this rule, of course, however, for the sake of consistency if you are going to use numerals for "22", you should replace "twelve" with "12" (to make it "12-gun, 135 ton schooner"). Likewise, if you would prefer to spell, then "22" should become "twenty-two" (to make it "twenty-two-gun vessel"). It is about consistency of style. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand now, i believe i have fixed what your talking about.XavierGreen (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• • who is "the Dey"? They are mentioned in the Aftermath with no context. —

The Dey was the ruler of Tripoli, i changed this so it can be more easily understood.XavierGreen (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Good work. I've struck my comments that have been dealt with, however, there is still one outstanding, per above. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • I've further clarified the Dey. There is also some potential for confusion with First Barbary War, which uses Pasha (which appears to be an honorific, not a position) instead of Dey; this probably needs to be clarified in First Barbary War, not here.

I think the confusion results from the fact that different sources use different terms, and that the title of the leader of Tripolitia changed numerous times over the course of history. I've changed it from Dey to Pasha to conform with the other articles about him. (this can always be changed back if nessesary).XavierGreen (talk)

• • I could use a brief paragraph on basic background: origin/cause of the war, beginning of the blockade.

I added some background information, this action was the first signifigant event during the blockade.XavierGreen (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• • "Although the Tripolitans held a slight advantage in firepower, Enterprise had the advantage of a larger complement at the start of the action." - larger complement of what? my first interpretation was firepower, but I suspect you mean manpower; please clarify.

In naval terms complement almost always means manpower, but i have clarfied this in the text.XavierGreen (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• • the lopsidedness of the action leads me to wonder about the relative experience levels of the crews; do your sources address this?

The key factor in the Tripolitans loss was not experience, but rather tactics. Tripolitan military doctrine was focused primarily on carrying vessels by boarding. The fact the the Tripolitans were unable to board made their expertise in those tactics useless. That combined with the American surprise attack on the vessel led to the Amerioan victory.XavierGreen (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I would add words explaining this to the second background paragraph -- the Americans' advantage isn't just manpower, it's also how each side chose to use it. Magic♪piano 21:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• - Magic♪piano

15:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good! Magic♪piano 13:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 22:01, 30 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.

---

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Slater's Knoll

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...I believe that it meets the A class criteria. This is only my second ACR, so any help that you can provide will be greatly appreciated. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • All images have alt text, there are no DAB links and it is well referenced, good work;
  • One of the external links is broken though I'm afraid (one of the AWM references); Done
  • I think you should consider rewording the first paragraph in the 'Back ground' section as it is a little unclear (to me at least) what the relationship was between the Allies' inaccurate estimate of Japanese strength and the subsequent decision to mount an aggressive campaign to clear them from Bougainville. Also this policy was considered fairly controversial in Australia at the time (and today), this could possible be mentioned (not in great detail though); Done
  • You might consider tweaking the image placement further to offset them, left and then right, etc (I don't think this is a WP:MOS requirement though); Done
  • This sentence in the 'Prelude' section could possibly be reworded: "A number of attacks occurred over the course of 15–17 March..."; Done
  • Breaking up the 'Battle' section with some descriptive 3rd level headers might aid readability; Done
  • Use of terminology such as 'wet gaps' should probably be avoided (I know it makes sense to a military engineer but it could probably be put in more common terms); Done
  • I have made a few edits for punctuation, prose etc. Please review and change if you don't like.

Anyway that's its from me for now. Overall, this is an excellent article in my opinion and most of my points are more suggestions than anything.Anotherclown (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, so I'm adding my support now. (Wow you think like I do... the last change you did with the images was exactly what I was about to do but you beat me to it... haha) Anotherclown (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW SpoolWhippets maps deserve a special mention. They are excellent examples... what ever happened to him anyway? Anotherclown (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Cheers. Definately agree with your comment about the maps, they make the article look so much better. Hopefully, he's just on a break and will be back soon. — AustralianRupert (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Newm30 (talk) 11:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support This is a great article, and meets the A class criteria. My suggestions for further improvements are:
  • Who "believed that the Japanese forces on the island numbered around 17,500 men"? - the Australians, I assume
  • I think that the Australian II corps didn't just consist of the 3rd Division - from memory there were one or two independent brigades on Bougainville along with artillery and armoured units under the corps HQ. I wouldn't be surprised if the division on New Britain also reported to II Corps. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review, Nick. I've made a couple of changes based on these suggestions. I was able to verify the info about the two brigades, but haven't found a citation for the arty and armoured units being attached at Corps level (although I'm think you are right - I seem to remember reading somewhere (probably Hopkins) about the 2/4th Armoured detaching troops and squadrons to a number of campaigns at this time, although perhaps they were attached at div level, not sure). — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Found it, I think. I've added it in a note. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 21:00, 30 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 02:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

22nd Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry

Nominator(s): User:Historical Perspective (talk)

I am hoping this article meets the criteria for A class. Would appreciate and comments, help, suggestions, etc. Thanks! Historical Perspective (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• No dabs, links look good, and alt text is present. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support regards criteria 1a, 3 & 4

• Check typo in "Henry Wilson when Vice-President of the United States, about ten years after he organized the 22nd Massachusetts." No other typos found, to my happy surprise
• An interesting factoid in the lead could encourage readers to proceed to the text
• Great text, tight, clear, powerful
• Images good, good job. Doug (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Response: Thanks. I changed that photo caption and added two factoids to the lead, one about the terrible casualties they took at Gaines' Mill and another about their specialty as skirmishers. Historical Perspective (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: looks fine to me, I couldn't find much wrong with it.
  • File:William S. Tilton.jpg needs author information, all other images are appropriately licenced, etc.;
  • in the Mustering out section, should "reenlist" be "re-enlist"?
  • (just a suggestion), but could a stub be created for the 32nd Massachusetts (with whom they were consolidated), so that there is a link to them from this article?
  • there is no need for the link in the External links section, as you've already linked it in Notes;
  • the article should probably be placed in some more categories to improve traffic to a from. A couple of categories could be: "Military units and formations established in 1861" and "Military units and formations disestablished in 1864" — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Response: Thanks. I did all of the above. The 32nd page is very much a stub right now. But I'll add to it by and by. Always happy for a reason to start another regimental page. Historical Perspective (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support: all my suggestions have been dealt with. Article meets the criteria in my opinion, so I offer my support. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support, looks good to me! - The Bushranger (talk) 01:55, 25 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 01:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Brian Eaton

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Another RAAF pilot, but one of the few who made the transition from distinguished World War II combat leader into senior commander of the post-war era. What particularly struck me about this chap was how easily he could have got the chop before any of it got under way—plenty of his comrades were not so lucky... The other thing was the challenge to see if I could put together an article of A/FA length and standard when there are no bios of the guy among the usual sources such as the Australian Dictionary of Biography, the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History, or Alan Stephens' High Fliers. Performed the trick with John Lloyd Waddy, so we'll see if lightning strikes twice... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support This is really excellent work Ian, and easily meets the A class criteria. The only comment I have is that it would be interesting to state why Eaton was awarded the Silver Star - as he seems to have served primarily with Commonwealth forces, it's unusual that he received an important American decoration. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Nick. Re. the Silver Star, I wish I knew myself -- AWM is missing the recommendation card (which might've at least narrowed it down to a particular campaign or battle) and none of the other sources I have explain just why either... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support: no dabs, alt text is present and ext links all work. I can find nothing to pick fault with. Good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support a little light on the early life but a very nice read MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - just two quick comments for now:
  • According to this AWM record, Eaton was additionally awarded the Dutch Order of Orange-Nassau for his service in the Second World War, though the details do not seem to be available.
    • Yes, I saw that one of course, and was almost taken in by it, but have you checked the details in the London Gazette? And noticed that the date of the award is exactly the same as a similar honour record for Charles Eaton? I'm afraid AWM has got its Eatons mixed up... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Didn't check the London Gazette on this one as the only date listed is for the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. :) Though unless we can locate the entry in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette to determine which Eaton was the recipient I agree that this shouldn't be added in. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Yep, it's definitely Charles' as he served in the Dutch East Indies, which Brian never did. Other sources for Charles mention it, bur none of Brian's do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • In the article it states that Eaton, Martin, Shannon and Hampshire were the only four Australian airman to receive the DSO and Bar during the Second World War. However, this is not correct as there was a fifth award to Wing Commander Colin Milson [29][30] in July 1945.
    • Well if true we'll just have to take that statement out as I can't change what Garrisson says even if he's wrong - unless you can find someone saying "one of only five"...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately I could not locate a source that explicitly states this, even re-checking the ADB entries on Hampshire and Milson—the only two of the five that have articles!—yelded nothing. Annoying really. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I'll take it out then, the article won't die without it -- tks for picking it up! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support - another fantastic addition to wikipedia. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Very nice work, Ian. This was quite interesting to read. Parsecboy (talk) 11:42, 28 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.

---

Battle of Valcour Island

Promoted Parsecboy (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Magic♪piano

Following on the heels of my recent ACR, I present another item from the 1775 Canadian invasion (and one of the first naval battles of the American Revolutionary War) for your consideration. Magic♪piano 15:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with dab links, external links, or alt text. Well done.
  • More to follow... TomStar81 (Talk) 03:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "Although most of the ships in the American fleet under the command of Benedict Arnold were captured or destroyed, the American defense of Lake Champlain delayed until 1777 the British attempt to divide the colonies by gaining control of the upper Hudson Valley." This reads weird, can you reword it?
    • Actually, in light of the above comment, I think this whole article could do with a copy edit. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I've rephrased the above sentence; if you give additional examples of problematic writing, it may give me an idea of what's bugging you about the writing. Magic♪piano 00:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • As you wish. To keep this manageable I will go through each section individually. Note that these are my comments on the matter, so if you have a good reason for keeping something worded the way it is then please say so.
    • From the lead:
      • General Carleton had a 9,000 man army at Fort Saint-Jean, but needed to build a fleet to carry it. Carry it where?
      • By early October, the British fleet, which significantly outgunned the American fleet, was ready for launch. Launch from where?
      • After being drawn to Arnold's carefully-chosen battle position on October 11, the battle was engaged. This read ackwardly, see if you can fix it.
      • That night Arnold boldly sneaked the American fleet past the British one, and began a retreat toward Crown Point and Ticonderoga. This reads ackwardly, and has tense problems and NPOV problems (boldy is POV, sneaked should be snuck, if its going to appear here)
      • More of the fleet was destroyed when Arnold decided he could not hold Crown Point, and retreated back to Ticonderoga. This reads ackwardly.
      • The British forces included four officers who later became admirals in the Royal Navy: Thomas Pringle, James Dacres, Edward Pellew and John Schank. Was there more than force? Up till now, the article seemed to suggest there was only one force, so to have forces seems odd. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your useful feedback; writing all the way up to A/FA standards is probably my weakest point, so I appreciate your time and effort. I've made changes to address the above. Magic♪piano 13:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • in the Arnold patrols the lake section "twenty miles" should have a {{convert}} added to it;
  • there is some inconsistency in the format you use for time. In the Battle section you have "6:30 pm", then in the Retreat section you have "2 pm". I think for consistency, 2 pm should be "2:00 pm";
  • in the Aftermath section "three miles" should have a {{convert}} added to it;
  • in the Commemoration section, the citations for the last sentence are out of numerical order (i.e 40 then 39). If you reorder them to be "39, 40", they would look better IMO, but I don't think this is a MOS requirement, so it is just a suggestion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments; I've made changes to fix this things. Magic♪piano 15:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I've struck my comments as they've all been dealt with, but want to see how you address Tom's comments before supporting. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Leaning Support have questions.

• BTW, I'm okay with boldly snuck. Or audaciously, or whatever. A spade is a spade.
• Lead seems contradictory, but perhaps I don't understand the battle, so we'll get back to that ,okay?
• Carleton then launched his own offensive intended to gain control of the Hudson River Valley, which extends southward not far from Lake Champlain.
  • The Hudson River begins just south of Lake Champlain? Or the valley only extends a little bit south of Lake Champlain? (I'll argue with you on that). Some of this could be solved by describing the strategic importance of Lake Champlain and the Hudson valley in a separate subsection.
    • I've rephrased this. Magic♪piano 14:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• These tactics effectively denied the British any hope of immediately moving onto the lake.
  • How?
    • Answered in the previous paragraph (existing fleet in American hands, and too small). Magic♪piano 14:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• ...HMS Inflexible, a 180-ton warship they disassembled and rebuilt on the lake.
  • they took it apart on the lake and rebuilt it? How interesting and pointless an exercise!
    • Indeed. I would think it obvious that it was disassembled in one place and rebuilt in another. I have rendered the text more obvious... Magic♪piano 14:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• ..carried enough firepower to threaten the entirety of Arnold's fleet by themselves.
  • carried enough firepower to outgun the entirety...?
    • Rephrased. Magic♪piano 14:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Benedict Arnold's flagship during his patrols of the lake was the Royal Savage, a two-masted schooner carrying 12 guns, commanded by Captain David Hawley.
  • BA regularly patrolled the lake in his flagship, the... (wouldn't this work better as a chart? Line of Battle, or something? There are such charts used often in naval battle articles (see Battle of Pulo Aura.)
    • I can probably assemble a tabular order of battle, but need to work in some of the explanatory text... Magic♪piano 14:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• in the previous section you have forces assembled, and in the section on Arnold patrols the lake... you have them building the ships still.
  • I've switched the order of these sections; I don't think the flow of the article is significantly affected. Magic♪piano 14:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

More later. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's much improved. I made a couple of minor copyedits--easier than listing a bunch of things here, etc. There was one sentence that was entirely repetitive (re Pringle). You may want to put it bac, but I don't think it's necessary.
  • Looks fine to me, but I fixed a few minor things in your changes. Magic♪piano 03:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• I like this article. There is one thing that could help clarify some of the toings and froings. Many Americans have no idea what Lake Champlain is like. Most Europeans won't have seen a lake of this size--I guess it's bigger than lakes in western and central Europe--there might be some in Finland of this size. Possibly a brief description of the lake would help. I know you've included maps, but these old black and white maps are sometimes not as pictorially specific as we might wish. I made a note in one of the edit summaries, for example, asking how a part of the lake could be rocky. I know, it had rocks. But most people won't have been to Lake Champlain, and may not understand its geography, its size, and its many inlets and islands. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • This point is well taken; I will see about pulling together a suitable description of the lake. Magic♪piano 03:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I've added a description of the lake. Magic♪piano 15:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I've added some dimensions--the text didn't do the size of the lake justice. See if that works for you. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Looks good, especially with a citation and a few small changes. (I know, some of the numbers now disagree with the Lake Champlain article; but those are not cited.) Magic♪piano 16:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
          • works for me. I made "this number" to these numbers, because both the surface area and the number of islands changes, and "this number" was ambiguous. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comments: I've taken another look and have some more suggestions:
  • there is some inconsistency in how you treat numbers greater than nine (for example 15 miles in Battle section; but twenty miles in Arnold patrols the lake section). Per the WP:MOS, numbers greater than nine should usually use numerals;
  • is it possible to add in a few more wikilinks, some of the sections have very few (midshipman is one term that could be linked, some of the types of ships such as gundalow could also be linked);
  • in the Battle section, can you please clarify the time "Around 12:30" - is this am or pm? I assume it is pm, but it needs to be stated;
  • suggest wikilinking Philadelphia (the ship) in the Battle section and removing the wikilink to it in the Aftermath section. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
    • One consequence of going to the tabular order of battle was that a lot of ship links disappeared from the text, since they were introduced in the textual order. I've now added ship links back in, as well as a few others that seem applicable. It hink I've also addressed your other items... Magic♪piano 19:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support: looks good in my opinion. All my concerns have been addressed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Overall IMO this is a fine article. Only one comment:
  • Should the article be renamed to Naval Battle of Valcour Island as the wording in the leads suggests this is possibly a more appropriate name (I'm neutral either way)? Anotherclown (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The battle is referred to most histories (e.g. in chapter titles) without the prefix "Naval"; this is true of a great many naval battles. (Thanks for your support!) Magic♪piano 12:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
      • No worries, happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 04:41, 27 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.

---

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Kongō class battlecruiser

Nominator(s): Cam ^(Chat)

This article, concerning Japan's workhorse class of fast battleships from the Second World War, has been in development since November 2009. She passed her GAN on 28 March, was featured as the imaged DYK a day later, and has undergone minor tweaking since then. Respectfully submit for A-Class, with special thanks to Ed for his assistance with some of the sections, and to Parsecboy for his GAN Review. Cam ^(Chat) 01:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments This article is in good shape, but needs a bit more work to reach A class. My suggestions for improvements are as follows:
  • Some material isn't covered by citations

Just so that I have a bit more to go on, would you mind citation-tag bombing the article so I can see what needs citing? Cam ^(Chat) 21:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• • It seems a bit unnecessary to say that Kongō "was the last Japanese capital ship constructed outside of the Japanese Empire" - unless any Japanese capital ships were built in Korea or China (which I'm pretty sure didn't happen) this could just be 'outside of Japan'.

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat) 00:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• • "every single major engagement" is a bit over complex and could be replaced with 'all' if this was correct. However, as no Japanese BBs took part in the Battle of the Coral Sea it's not accurate, particularly as there were also a number of one-sided naval engagements in which large US carrier task forces clobbered Japanese bases without meeting significant opposition (eg, Operation Hailstone)

Fixed. The one-sided small ones aren't "major", but I've changed it anyways. Cam ^(Chat) 00:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• • The article has some passive prose which could be converted to the active voice (eg, "During the Battle of Guadalcanal, Kongō and her sisters played an active role in fighting American naval forces, with Kongō and Haruna bombarding Henderson Field..." could be converted to Kongō and her sisters engaged American naval forces in the Battle of Guadalcanal. During this engagement Kongō and Haruna bombarded Henderson Field..." and "Following patrolling duty off China" could be 'After conducting patrols off China")

Alright. Dank has agreed to do a major copyedit once the ACR is completed, so I imagine a lot of those problems will be fixed then. I'll do what I can in the meantime though. Cam ^(Chat) 21:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't generally make those tweaks. I try to "tighten" things if a substantial improvement leaps to mind, for instance when I think we can use a word instead of a long clause, or when information is repeated that doesn't need to be repeated, but I don't generally fiddle with passive voice or with rearranging a sentence so that I can change 3 words to 1 word or lose a comma, unless I really don't think what you've got works. - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I make an exception for the introduction; the introduction needs to be very tight and precise to pass FAC. In this article, people have already commented on the introduction and I'm not sure what they're looking for, so I didn't do much with it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• • 'Port Darwin' is an anachronism - the town was known as Darwin by the time of the war.

My bad. Fixed. Cam ^(Chat) 00:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• • What are First Reserve, Second Reserve and a 'Imperial Service Ship'?

First and Second Reserve are different levels of reserve (you call on first reserve before you call on second reserve), while Imperial Service Ships were vessels used by the royal family for transport. I've designated the first group as just "Reserve", and I'll outline what the Imperial Service ships were in a footnote. Cam ^(Chat) 21:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• • What islands other than Guadalcanal did Haruna bombard? I've read widely on this campaign and can't recall Japanese BBs making more attacks than just the famous bombardment of Henderson Field

None to my knowledge. I've tweaked accordingly. Cam ^(Chat) 00:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• • There's some over-linking which needs to be fixed (eg, the Battle of Midway is repeatedly linked)

Alright. I'll try to fix that as best as I can. Cam ^(Chat) 21:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• • To say that "The primary armament of the Kongō class took the form of eight 14-inch (360 mm)/45 calibre naval guns." is rather unclear - could the guns have taken an alternate form? ;) - 'was' seems simpler and more appropriate than 'took the form'

Well, later vessels used 16-inch and 18-inch, but you're right that it does sound a little bit convoluted. Changed. Cam ^(Chat) 21:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Are 'quick battlecruisers' a separate type of battlecruiser?

I don't believe so. I think battlecruiser is a pretty one-size-fits all kind of ship designation. I've changed that a bit just to more reflect that they were meant to have very high speeds. Cam ^(Chat) 21:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• • The Propulsion section basically states that the ships remained coal-burners throughout their careers - is this correct?

Ah. Thanks for catching that. They were replaced by oil-fired boilers during reconstruction. I've added something on that. Cam ^(Chat) 21:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• • The article states that the ships where highly advanced at the time they entered service, but doesn't provide any information on how they compared to their World War II era opponents (the results of the fighting around Guadalcanal suggest that they were inferior to the US Navy's battleships)

I mention it in the armour section - that they were lightly armoured compared to later vessels - but I can probably expand on that. Cam ^(Chat) 00:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Can anything on the human side of the ships be added? - eg, details on their habitability (particularly in tropical waters), the make up of their crew, etc - the article is rather 'dry' at present.

Other than crew numbers, none of my sources have anything on the human side of the ships. They're mostly mentioned in the context of their actions from a military POV. Cam ^(Chat) 00:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• • I'm a bit surprised that none of the many specialist works about the IJN have been consulted when developing this article, though that's more of an issue for a FAC than this ACR given that the current references are perfectly adequate. Nick-D (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support My comments are now addressed. There remains a need to consult specialist books on the IJN though - I skimmed through a copy of Kaigun in a library last weekend and it had some material on background to the decision to build the ships which isn't in the article, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I would suggest that whoever trawled through the Conway's entry on Kongō refer to the entry in the same book on HMS Tiger. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 16:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with the external links. You have a dab link and a redirect that comes back to the article, these need to be fixed. None of your images have alt text, and while I realize that the relevant policy has shifted I still think that we can add alt text here with no real loss at FAC. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• You tell us twice in the lead that they built four ships in the class. Rework the first paragraph and go over the rest of the lead as well.
• Given that they served during WWI please add the Japanese ships of WWI template, if it exists. I'd like to be able to check on the preceeding classes of Japanese capital ships and I can't do that easily from here. I know that you've sourced the statement about Invincible obsoleting the entire Japanese fleet, but that seems a bit extreme. Dreadnought did that far more thoroughly, IMO while Invincible did that to just to the armored cruisers.
• Pretty trivial name change by Vickers, I'd delete mention of it personally.

Alright. Deleted. Cam ^(Chat) 20:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• You're over-converting. Only the first instance need be converted in the main body. Watch your dashes vs. hyphens. And some of your citations are appearing out of order, as they did on the HMAS Australia article.
• Jackson's wrong about Tiger being a repeat Lion. Tiger was originally going to be an slightly improved Queen Mary, but that design was heavily modified to include 6-inch guns, revised turret layout and a revised armor scheme. Tiger wasn't even laid down until 18 months after Kongo!

Ay Caramba! The number of disputes that have been had over the Tiger is crazy. The reason she wasn't laid down until 18 months after the Kongo was because they decided to incorporate a few of the design ideas (all forward-aft battery, for example) into her design scheme. I'll see what I can do with this though. Cam ^(Chat) 20:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

She was laid down about 15 months after Queen Mary although the first design studies were submitted in July 1911 (11 months earlier) for ships with super-firing turrets. As far as I can tell she was much more closely related to the Iron Dukes as two of the three designs proposed copied their turret layout with the deletion of the center turret. The third design separated the two rear turrets as the turret was moved between the engine and boiler rooms as that was a more convenient lacation given the new bulkhead arrangement that a rear torpedo room was introduced. Maybe Simon can scan the article on the design history of Tiger for you to judge for yourself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Link to the article on the Type 90 floatplane.

More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Some of your references are missing place of publication.
  • Swap the positions of the ship histories with the specifications; it makes no sense to discuss the ship histories before talking about their specifications, which should flow naturally right after the design section. I'd also suggest renaming specifications to description as that's what you're doing in this section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's the thing. I based the page format for all of my battleship stuff off of Iowa class battleship and Yamato class battleship, both of which go through the vessels first, and then go into specifications. I'm basing my format on precedence, and no one objected to the order during the Yamato class FAC. Cam ^(Chat) 20:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That's as may be, but it certainly isn't logical to have a design section, switch to ship histories, and then go into a detailed description.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• • The boiler layout doesn't match what you're saying here. 36 boilers doesn't fit evenly into 8 boiler rooms. Please clarify.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm doing some general copyediting. This might be a good time to mention that I have basically two goals (both difficult, but worth the effort) for FAC-bound articles: preserving as much of your own "voice" as I can without risking the wrath of the FAC reviewers and the puzzlement of general-interest readers, and staying out of the line of fire of the conflicts that are bound to arise when knowledgeable editors care about the finished product. That second goal means that even if I think something could possibly be reworded, I'm likely not to fiddle with it if I'm sensing there's a judgment call on a matter of substance on which different WP:SHIPS editors might disagree, unless IMO we're constrained by MOS and/or FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Ahoy, newb question here about navy lists: "She was removed from the Navy List on 20 January 1945". Does it really matter what day she's removed from the roster when she's lying at the bottom of the ocean? Isn't it pretty much over when she's sunk? - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the exact details, but I believe it has to do with legal issues, primarily. Although I would say the date of removal is notable. - The Bushranger (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I've always wondered why they don't backdate the stricken date to the date of loss.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd presume because the ship is "still on the books" until the stricken date. - The Bushranger (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Occasionally it is due to secrecy, the British Admiralty kept the loss of HMS Barham (04) secret for months. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Hiei was sunk northwest of Savo Island on the evening of 13 November by Japanese destroyers." Scuttled, or friendly fire? - Dank (push to talk) 12:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It was a scuttling - both sides would 'finish off' crippled and unsalvagable ships to avoid their potentially falling into enemy hands. - The Bushranger (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• fitting out vs. fitting-out: that page title uses a hyphen, so if you use a hyphen, you've got an argument to fall back on if challenged at FAC. OTOH, there are fewer and fewer hyphens these days in good writing, and it's likely that it's fine either way. - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• I understand the dilemma that leads to writing (without quotes) "Fast Battleship", but capitals aren't an acceptable answer at FAC per WP:MOS#Capital letters. Something else will have to alert the reader that we're not talking about just a fast battleship. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Perhaps italics or something? Cam ^(Chat) 02:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Italics doesn't feel right either, I'll poke around in other articles. - Dank (push to talk) 04:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'd prefer we link stowage, but that article is a stubby-stub and might be in danger of disappearing; should we link to the glossary instead? - Dank (push to talk) 13:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Glossary probably. Cam ^(Chat) 02:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Just offering this as a "peek behind the curtain" of the life of a copyeditor. Most writers have a great feel for what looks right to them but not so much for what looks right to everyone. One "trick" that copyeditors use (including on Wikipedia) is to ask for consistency. A writer might not follow that "5 in turret" will make some readers wonder "5 of what in a turret?", but usually you can get writers to buy into the idea that it just makes more work for everyone if we make up different rules on the fly, that consistency makes it easier for everyone to learn how it's done. Learning a handy set of rules and making edits per those rules generally makes for a more collegial relationship than making the kind of snarky comment I just made. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Sigh. I know that a lot of military historians write "the Kongōs", but per WP:JARGON (a page that was recently redirected ... grrr, it was handy), jargon that's rarely used outside of a specialty field just isn't suitable for a general readership. Not one reader in a hundred would guess that most of the "the Kongōs" don't have "Kongō" anywhere in their name. I understand that it gets really tedious to repeat "blah blah class ships", but you don't have to keep repeating that. In articles like these, we expect the readers to either know the acronyms and definitions already or to read from top to bottom, otherwise they won't know what for instance "IJN" means. By the middle of the article, readers ought to know what we mean by "these four ships". - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have a little more confidence in the average reader being able to figure that out. But "the Kongo class" would seem to me to be a reasonable middle ground between the two examples you gave. - The Bushranger (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Outside of military articles, and even in most military articles, I'm drawing a blank on this usage. "The Sputniks" means, to most readers, Sputnik 1 through Sputnik 25; if another satellite was designed and ordered at the same time, but called something else, most readers would say that that's not a Sputnik. We say "the space shuttles", not "the Enterprises". Even if half the readers of this article understand what that means, it's still kind of the point of copyediting to help the writer reach a wider audience. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's because the space shuttles aren't ships. Ships, with very few exceptions (for instance, the MEKO types), are grouped in classes with the class name being (as a rule) that of the first ship of the class - the Holiday class cruise ship provides a non-military example; while Nimitz class aircraft carrier provides a (different than Kongo) military one. When referring to a specific ship as being part of a group of similar ships, the useage is always "__________, a _________ class ________", and as a group, the "ships of the _______ class" or "the _________s". - The Bushranger (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I see I'm not being clear ... if you put this in the first section, and then use the term throughout the article, then we're fine:

The Kongōs (meaning "the ships of the Kongo class") ...

Some reviewers may object on various theories, but we've got defenses to those theories, I think. Or they may not ... it's kind of random, especially on articles that have already gone through an extensive review like this one. But if you use language only used in reference to ships and don't explain the language, then not only can I not defend that on style grounds, I can't even defend it on policy grounds. Per WP:NOT, "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text." - Dank (push to talk) 13:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

One other issue ... the ship FAs I've read have all used "class" rather than "the Xs" consistently, and WP:SHIPNAME doesn't mention the "the Xs" usage in the section on classes. What I don't recommend is trying to do this in one or two FACs without making a change to WP:SHIPNAME, lining up support, and doing it in a bunch of FACs. I guess my advice is: feel free to champion any language you want, but line up support and pick your battles. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that "the (class name)s" is something that would require assumption that the reader is well versed in ships to understand, seeing as I knew what that meant when I was 8 years old. But if WP:SHIPNAME calls for it to be done differently, then I have no problem at all with consensus/guidelines. :) - The Bushranger (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• I removed the quotes from "up to" in: "and carried up to 118 of them in varying configurations". I'm not sure, but I think FAC reviewers (if they think about it) will say: either you believe your sources or you don't. If you don't, don't say it. If you do, don't add scare-quotes. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Not sure if the same article should contain the spellings "armour" and "maneuverability". - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

British English (i.e. with the U's) should probably be used if possible, as the ships were built in England and Japan was a British ally, if for not other reason. - The Bushranger (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Understood, so is that the right spelling of "maneuverability"? - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know what this means: "Two each were located together, separated from the others by longitudinal bulkheads." - Dank (push to talk) 14:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah. The boilers were in two per chamber; chambers are separated by bulkheads. My apologies for the convolutedness. Cam ^(Chat) 02:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know what "Haruna was unique in receiving Brown–Curtis turbines." means ... if you want to say that Haruna was the only Japanese ship, or the only ship ever, to be fitted with these turbines, then please say that. If it's the only one of these four ships, I made the change and it's fine now.

Ah. Yep. She was the only one of those four ships to receive Brown-Curtis turbines. Cam ^(Chat) 02:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• There's another "Fast Battleship" in the last section; see above.
• Support per usual disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Another general comment for whoever happens to read it, and this is not a big deal. I'm aware that copyeditors tend to get annoyed over time if writers aren't picking up on things the copyeditors are saying and fixing them in future articles. Volunteers, including volunteer copyeditors, like to see that their contributions are making a difference. I suppose I'm no different, but OTOH, I'm not above digging in and doing the work myself. The whole point of copyediting is that human brains are wired to ignore "small things", like punctuation, because ignoring details help with grabbing and storing the meaning of the words ... so most readers and writers tend not to see exactly the things that copyeditors are looking at (until they're forced to slow down and look closely ... which they generally resist), so I can't complain if there's work for me to do on every article. I do appreciate the effort that many of you are making to respond to some of the things other copyeditors and I have said. - Dank (push to talk) 15:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Dab links are still present, and alt text has yet to be added. This is problematic to me. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

  I have an idea what's going on with the alt text debates at WT:MOS, but I don't know how you guys feel about alt text in general. I was distressed that we added a FAC requirement of alt text (by adding WP:ALT to the style guidelines) before we had hashed out what was required, and why. I would prefer not to do alt text on my own ship articles and let other people add whatever they think works, just to stay out of that whole mess. - Dank (push to talk) 20:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

  P.S. And ... most of you know this, but ALT was demoted out of the style guidelines a couple of months ago. - Dank (push to talk) 21:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

  Personally I'm not inclined to sweat the alt text, but I think that Tom is thinking a bit more long-term.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

disambig fixed. Alt text isn't required. Cam ^(Chat) 22:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Support I would feel better to have alt text for images, however I am aware of the discontinuation of this requirement. Still, I believe that it will be reinstated sometime in the future; when that happens, I like to think that our articles will be one step ahead of the rest of the pack. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• SupportComment: there's an "awkward wording" and a "clarification needed" tag. Can these be dealt with, please? Otherwise I think the article is fine and believe it meets the A class criteria. I agree with Tom regarding alt text. I understand it is not a requirement at the moment, but as it probably will be requirement again sometime, would it not make sense to add it in now while we are doing the ACR, so that we don't have to come back later and add it later? (This does not affect my support, though). — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:55, 24 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 08:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Chochiwon

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!^(talk) 20:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've got some comments from my intial look at the article (I'm not up-to-snuff on the technical things yet).

• In the infobox, there are two asteriks with comments, but I only found the double-asterik attached to something. Should the single be after the casualties for the US side, or what?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Under the 'Fight at Chonui' subheading, in the second sentence: "leaving Companies A and D to hold the line with a handful of replacements for to fill the extra positions." The "for to fill" seems a bit...awkwardly worded, doesn't it?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Second to last line of 'American Counterattack:' "Most of these men were captured." What men? The 150 that formed a retreat? The unit itself? Those who tried to make it back to American lines cross-country?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• First line of Aftermath has W killed, X wounded and Y captured and Z missing. Duplicate ands are grammatically incorrect, if I'm not mistaken.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

For now, that's what I'm seeing. I'll look over it again after a bit when I'm a bit more focused.Cromdog (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• • I think I have responded to all of your concerns. —Ed!^(talk) 00:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed the article again, I support it for A-class. The only thing I want to say is that I think it could use another pic if you had one from the actual battle or the area. Not a necessity, just something I like to see.Cromdog (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts:

• Nicely and clearly written.
• One of the paragraphs begins: "During that time, the 34th Infantry Regiment set up a line...." - we don't find out which nationality the Regiment was until the end of the sentence; "...the US 34th..." might solve this.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• The beginning of the article isn't exactly POV - in that it is perfectly neutral - but it is clearly a history told from a Western perspective; we get a lot of information about the composition and training of the US forces, but little about the North Koreans; we learn about the type of aircraft used to fly in US forces long before we find out which NK divisions were involved in the battle etc. I also don't think there is any NK casualty numbers listed in the aftermath; this may of course just reflect sources, but if so it would be good to note that this is the case.

Hchc2009 (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• • That's because North Korean records one the fight aren't great. I added a sentence in the aftermath stating their casualty count is unknown. —Ed!^(talk) 00:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with alt text or external links. One dab link is reported in the article, please see about fixing that.
  • More to follow... TomStar81 (Talk) 03:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I can find no reason to oppose. This is a well written article, but I do lament on the fact that there North Korean Numbers are largely unknown, but that is not strictly speaking your fault. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Support I'm planning to support this but I have questions.

• Lead: Aided by air strikes, U.S. Army units were able to inflict substantial damage on the North Korean armor and other vehicles, but was overwhelmed by North Korean infantry. The two understrength U.S. battalions fought in several engagements over the three day period and suffered massive losses in personnel and equipment, but were able to delay the North Korean forces for several days, allowing the remainder of the 24th Infantry Division to set up blocking positions along the Kum River near the city of Taejon.
  • Okay, this comes before the battle of Taejon (article we looked at last week), and after the battle of...? Was the aid of the airstrikes that allowed the 24th to set up blocking positions? Or was that the delaying? *When the positions were flanked... twice? once by infantry and once by tanks? or were they only flanked once?

There are a lot of repetitions, some of which I've removed. Would you re-read/re-edit, so that it's tighter? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Chochiwon comes after Chonan and before Taejon, which I tried to explain between the background and aftermath sections. The blocking positions were established thanks to the delaying actions; airstrikes are in the previous sentence to establish they helped with casualties, not delays. I have looked over the article again and tried to tighten it up a little. —Ed!^(talk) 02:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll support this for ACR. Ed, if you're planning to go to fa with this, please do, or as someone to do, a really tough copy edit. I'm convinced of the content and comprehensiveness is good, but the prose needs work. I echo the points raised about the use of "enemy" and such phrases, as well, (pov). Even if there isn't much NK information, there still is no call to refer to NK as "enemy" in an encyclopedia article. Perhaps "opposition" would be less problematic. Or even "their opposition". Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I have made a few tweaks to the lead, please review to see if you're happy with them;
  • The 'Outbreak of War' section seemed a little choppy and had some repetition and some grammar issues, again please check my corrections;
  • The second paragraph in the 'Early engagements' sections seems too long so I split it, its also a little choppy so please look at revising;
  • The 'Airstrike' section needed a copy edit, again I have been bold so please check it;
  • Second para in the 'Fight at Chonui' section is a little repetitive - for instance you mention the fog a few too many times, use the word casualties, artillery etc;
  • There were a few instances were you gave distances without using the conversion template - I think I got them but please check;
  • In the 'Chochiwon falls' section you again get a little repetitive, for instance 'estimated' and 'North Korean' and
  • Use of words such as 'enemy' are POV and should be avoided (I have removed it, but please check to see there are no others).

Anyway that is it from me, overall it looks good. Again I have made quite a few changes myself, so please review them to see if you're happy with them. In future if you would rather make the changes yourself please let me know and I will be less bold in my reviews. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with that either way. I found all of your changes constructive and would have gladly done them myself. I think I have cleaned up any remaining concerns you noted above. —Ed!^(talk) 04:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Support - Looks good, striking all comments. Anotherclown (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Generally very good, IMO. I have the following points, however:
  • in the Early engagements section you have "US 34th Infantry Regiment", but elsewhere you have "U.S.". For consistency it should be the same (also the abbrieviation of UN should conform with however you treat US);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Early engagements section you use the word disastrous a couple of times in quick succession, could you reword one of them?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Early engagements section "Pyongtaek-Ansong" should have an endash per WP:DASH;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Early engagements section you use the word "significantly" and then "significant" close together in the same sentence, could you try to reword please?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • sometimes you have "Companies B and C" (for instance in Fight at Chonui section) then elsewhere "A Company";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Early engagements section, I think you have incorrectly capitalised "regiment" in this sentence: "The Regiment subsequently retreated to Chonan..." (regiment should be lower case, I believe);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • wikilink Task Force Smith in the Early engagements section, and remove the wikilink to it in the Fight of Chonui section;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Battle section "Osan-Chonan road" should have an endash;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Airstriikes section, you start two consequtive sentences with the words "The regiment". Could you please try to reword one?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Airstrikes section, I suggest wikilinking "battery" to Battery (military unit), so that the size of the unit can be clarified for those not in the know;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Airstrikes section, I think "along the roads" is redundant as roadblocks aren't really placed anywhere but on a road;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Fight at Chonui section, this sentence has a repeating clause: "At 0700 the 1st Battalion then came under heavy mortar fire,[27] and A Company on the leftmost ridge came under fire from..." (came under...fire is repeated, can you try to reword one?);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • These couple of sentences need work: "North Korean forces, meanwhile, flanked the American positions under cover of fog, passing around its right flank and attacking the mortar positions in the rear.[27] T-34 tanks also joined in the fight, and also passing around the American flanks, also obscured by the fog" (There is a mix of tense ["its right flank" should be "their right flank"]; then there are two uses of the word "also");
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • In the Fight at Chonui section, add an apostrophe to this clause to indicate ownership of the actions (e.g. Stephens') "...positions regardless of Stephens efforts to keep them there";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the American counterattack section, I don't think the "armor" is correctly capitalised in this sentence: "...U.S. Armor in the..." (should be lower case, I believe);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the American counterattack section, "3rd battalion", should be "3rd Battalion";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the American counterattack section, I suggest wikilinking "forward observer";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Aftermath section, this clause seems a little unclear: "and enough clothing to for 975 men..." — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed. I think that's everything. —Ed!^(talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, I fear some of these issues may have been introduced by my edits. I'll take two for poor staff duties and an upper cut. Apologies Ed. Anotherclown (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's no problem! I appreciate all the input I can get. —Ed!^(talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:55, 23 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.

---

Closed as promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Heinrich Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because thanks to Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) I believe the article may also qualify for A-Class. Please let me know what might be missing. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No dabs, alt text present, links are good according to tools. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • the first sentence is a little clunky (the addition of "of aristocratic descent" before "during World War II" indicates that his aristocratic descent was during the war, not his status as a night fighter;

  done

  • World War II is overlinked in the lead (in the first sentence and then last sentence of the first paragraph);

  done

  • suggest wikilinking "cavalry" in the lead;

  done

  • in the lead "night of 6 to 7 May" I believe should be "6/7 May" per Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Dates;

  done

  • in the Personal life section, the word "numerous" appears twice in the same sentence, I suggest changing the second one to "various" for variety;

  done

  • in the Military career section, second sentence I suggest deleting one mention of "1937" in this sentence: "...summer of 1937 and, in October 1937, he was..." (I suggest losing the second mention of the year to improve flow);

  done

  • suggest wikilinking "officer" to Officer (armed forces) in the Military career section;

  done

  • you appear to be using US English variation, however, some of your converts are using British English (e.g. in the Night fighter section "kilometres". You can set these to us US spelling, by adding "|sp=us" to the convert template;

  done

  • in the Night fighter section, you capitalise the word "Bombers" in this sentence: " 6 four-engined Bombers". Should this be so?

  done

  • in the same sentence you use the numeral "6", howevr, under the MOS I think it should be spelt in this situation;

  done

  • please check your capitalisation of "front" in this sentence in the Death section: "...Eastern and 60 on the Western front..."' In other instances you use Western Front;

  done

  • I think there is a word missing in this sentence in the Death section: "This encounter exactly matches time and area in which Sayn-Wittgenstein was killed." (I think you should add "the" in front of "time and area");

  done

  • Citation # 23 needs a full stop for consistency (Hinchliffe 1998, pp. 238–239);

  done

  • the date ranges in the titles in Bibliography and in citations need endashes per WP:DASH;

  done

  • the article is in the category "Failed assasins of Hitler", but is the subject really a failed assassin. From what I can tell from the article (and I admit to having no other information on this) he thought about it and maybe even planned to do it, but did not actually attempt it. Surely to be a "failed" assassin, one must actually attempt it?

  done Removed

  • Additionally, as per above, can one really put him in the category of German resistance members? — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

  done Removed

• Thanks for the feedback. I believe to have addressed every point MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my comments have been addressed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Made a small copyedit for grammar in the opening, didn't see any other issues. Support. - The Bushranger (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Support'. I've watched this article grow up (so to speak). Although short, it appears to be comprehensive. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:46, 24 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 04:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Chonan

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!^(talk) 01:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • no dabs, alt text is present and ext links all work (no action required);
  • can you please try to reword the first sentence of the lead, currently it sounds like the third engagement on the night of July 7-8, when you mean third engagement of the war.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk)
  • per the MOS, I think "July 7-8" should be "July 7/8"
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Outbreak of the war section, "Far east" should be fully capitalised IMO as it is a proper noun;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • This sentence appears to be missing a word: "However, the division was under strength, only two-thirds the size of its regular wartime size". I'd suggest adding "and was" after "strength";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • some of the sentences are very short and stucatto, indeed it reads like a 2-3 round burst in places. An example is the last bit of the Outbreak of the war section. I'd suggest combining these two sentences;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • In the last part of the Early engagements section there is a full stop, but the next sentence begins without a capital letter;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • In the Opening moves section, Osan-Chonan road should have an endash per WP:DASH;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • In the North Korean attack section, the red link to "Howtizers" is a misspelling - it should be "howitzers" (that might fix up the red link);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • In the North Korean attack section, I suggest wikilinking "executive officer" and "companies";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • In the American withdrawal section, I think "...heavy casualties, and was saved..." should be reworded to "heavy casualties, but was saved...";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • In the American withdrawal section, I suggest wikilinking "mortar". — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed. I think I have responded to all of your concerns. —Ed!^(talk) 01:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Question though: I was under the impression that 12:00pm was 0:00 hours, not 24:00. Was this not the case? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That's my understanding, too, Tom, but not according to Wikipedia:MOS#Times, which indicates it can be both. That's not definately correct IMO, but who am I to argue with the MOS. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I just changed it to "midnight" to avoid any confusion. —Ed!^(talk) 01:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support all my concerns above have been addressed. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I can see no reason why not to. Well done. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:26, 21 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 07:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Douglas MacArthur

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

One of the most notable soldiers of the 20th Century. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments -- Most of the images are missing alt text, and you might want to check the external link tool. No dab issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Alt text has been added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Tks for that. Reviewed the rest now -- great work, particularly considering the import of the subject. Apart from my minor ce, just a few things:
      • Starting with Harvard University in 1869, civilian universities had begun grading students on academic performance alone, but West Point had retained the old "whole man" concept of education. MacArthur did not approve of this trend, but sought to modernize the system, expanding the concept of military character to include bearing, leadership, efficiency and athletic performance. He formalized the hitherto unwritten Cadet Honor Code in 1922 when he formed the Cadet Honor Committee to review honor allegations. -- this might be reprased a bit. First, can we confirm that the trend that MacArthur disapproved of was "grading students on academic performance alone"? Second, what exactly are "honor allegations"?
        • Yes, definitely: it was not MacArthur's intent that academic performance alone should determine class standing. In this he agreed with the Luddites. Honor allegation are allegations of lying, cheating or stealing. I have added a bit about the role of the committee. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Pardon ignorance but did Mac really wait till he got to Australia to turn command over to Wainwright?
        • Yes. The idea was that MacArthur would remain as commander USAFFE so that if Wainwright were captured he couldn't surrender the forces elsewhere in the Philippines. However, Washington overrode him and appointed Wainwright to command USAFFE. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
      • The illustrations are great but most need to be increased in size -- the one with Blamey, Kenney and co. is a good yardstick for what they should be.
        • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I get the same large amout of white space under Honors and awards mentioned below. If I move the wikiquote template to directly under the Leyte memorial image, the white disappears -- see how that works for you... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Looks the same to me. I never saw any white space. Done anyway. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
        • P.S. You haven't cited the nicknames "Gaijin Shogun" or "Big Chief". Rather than sourcing in the infobox, I'd prefer to see their origin mentioned/cited at the appropriate point in the body of the article, as with "Dugout Doug". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support This is really fantastic work. MacArthur was one of the most significant military figures of the 20th Century and played a key role in the politics of Australia and Japan yet for a long time the article on him was awful. I've got a few minor suggestions for further improvements though:
  • The last sentence in the 'Education and early life' section is a bit awkward
    • I've re-worded it. See if you like the new version better. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Saying that only "Vasey's Australian 7th Division advanced on Lae" leaves out the fact that the 9th Division was also advancing on the town from the opposite direction
    • Re-worded to mention the 9th Division as well. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if it's correct to say that the landing at Hollandia was 'risky' - GHQ was aware the area was only lightly defended by small numbers of second-rate troops from code breaking and were able to commit overwhelming forces.
    • That's what Willoughby said about Finschhafen too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • MarArthur's unusual role as the de-facto chief military advisor to the Australian Government for much of the Pacific War deserves a mention
    • Their close relationship is mentioned. I pulled up short of describing him as a de facto chief military advisor. What does that mean? That he provided advice to the government? Certainly. That the government took his advice over that of Blamey or the other chiefs? Hardly. Maybe we can think up a suitable wording. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The 'quotes' section is unreferenced and belongs on Wikiquotes - I'd suggest removing it
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support very good work, IMO. I have a couple of comments, suggestions before taking to FAC:
  • on my screen there is a large amount of whitespace in the Honors and awards section, possibly due to the positioning of the wikiquote box (might just be me, though);
    • Could be. Looks okay on my browser and screen at various sizes. I moved the wikiquote box the other day. Shifted a pic to the left too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • check your date formats, I found one example of Day Month "7 April" (in Later life section), when the rest of the article largely uses Month Day. Another example in the Meuse-Argonne Offensive ("30 September");
    • A Perl script found ten of them. Two remain, being in a book title. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • there is some inconsistency in the abbreviations for United States (mainly you have U.S., but I found an example of US in the Preparations subsection of World War II, also one in Leyete.
    • Corrected the one on Leyte. The other was generated by the conversion template, so not much that can be done... No others found. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, well done. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Outstanding article, I am impressed. I would point one thing out though: With regard to Emperor Hirohito, he is now known in Japan as Emperor Showa (a line goes over the "o"). It would be nice to note that in the article somewhere. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support - This is a very impressive article on a very important soldier. Excellent work. Parsecboy (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support - looks good to me. Well done as usual. Anotherclown (talk) 16:06, 20 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 06:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Petlyakov Pe-3

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it's ready and as preparation for an eventual FACR. Please point out any issues with the quality of the prose rather than say that it needs a copyedit as the latter comment isn't really helpful. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Great work identifying the units which operated the Pe-3. Can you break the listing down to PVO / VVS / A-VMF ? Right now they all appear to be Naval Aviation, and I'm sure they're mostly not. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that I can break out the PVO units although the Naval Aviation and VVS units are pretty easy to identify. I'll have to rework the list so that they don't all appear to be Naval Aviation as most are actually VVS, but the regiments move between the various branches, just to complicate things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comments
  • No issues with external links. Your image needs alt text, and one dab link needs to be found and fixed.
    • DAB cleaned up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Expand your intro paragraph to two paragraphs if you can, IMO this helps improve the article by making the intro more professional.
    • How does it look now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • More photographs would be appreciated if you can find any.
    • Not much chance with Putin reasserting copyright over WWII images.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Expand on the Finish bomber if you can; at a minimum, I would be interested to know what happened to the bomber's crew. TomStar81
    • I'll have to check my source once I get home and can access it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(Talk) 17:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • there is one dab link to "Tula" which needs fixing;
    • See above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • the Notes are slightly inconsistent. Compare # 2 (Gordon, pp. 381-383) to # 3 (Gordon, pp. 383-84). Either 2 should be changed to pp. 381-83, or 3 should be changed to pp. 383-384). My preferred is the second option, but I won't hold it against you whatever you chose. This mixture of style also occurs in other citations;
    • Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Massive nitpick, but the Bibliography section is inconsistent: the Smith source has a full stop after year and isbn, but the Gordon source does not have these full stops. I suggest formatting them with the {{cite book}} template which would make them consistent, but it is not a requirement. Either way, though, please rectify so they are the same;
    • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • there is some inconsistency in English variation. In the General characteristics section the word "metres" appears which is British English, but in the Development section the word "liters" and "center" are found, which are US English variations. You also use US "armor", so I assume it is US English you want to use throughout. If you want to force the {{convert}} template to use US English, just add "|sp=us" to the mark up;
    • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • do you have citations for the list of units that used the aircraft?
    • They're fully cited in the main body. Do you think that I need to cite them again?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
      • If it's not too much trouble, I'd prefer if the extra citations were added to the list of units that operated the aircraft. Readers won't always read through the entire text to verify the list, so adding the citations for the list also makes it easier for browsing readers to know that it is accurate. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Operational history section you use the date format "15th December", I don't think that this conforms with Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Dates;
  • sometimes you use number symbols for numbers over ten (e.g. "with a total of 27 Pe-3s"), but then other times you spell it with number words (e.g. "...only fifteen were fitted on Pe-3s). I think the MOS usually prefers numbers greater than ten to be depicted with number symbols (i.e. 27 rather than twenty-seven).
    • It's a little more complicated than that. Here's the exact text: Render numbers greater than nine as figures or, with consistency within each article, render numbers over nine that take two words or fewer to say as words (about five million people; 16 or sixteen; 84 or eighty-four; 200 or two hundred; but 3.75, 544, 21 million). Words may be preferable for approximations.
      • Hmm, seems confusing. Why can't they just make it clear so people with small brains like me can understand? Anyway, seems fine to me now. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, that is it from me. Good work so far, the article looks quite good in my opinion. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 20:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support: but ask that you consider the point about the citations for the list of units before taking to FAC. All other concerns met, and the units are cited in the prose, so it is just a style issue more than anything, which shouldn't keep this article from progressing IMO. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Understood, I just need to shake some time loose to do that. Not in a hurry to send it to FAC, anyways.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support - looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 16:12, 20 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.

---

List of battleships of Germany

Promoted by NativeForeigner 01:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

This list will eventually tie together all of the German BBs in one big happy FT (though we're still a far ways away from that at the moment). This is basically a repeat of the List of battlecruisers of Germany list I did back in January. The main concern for me is the prose. For instance, is the lead too "wall of text"-y? Thanks in advance to all reviewers. Parsecboy (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The lead does seem a fair bit Wall o' Text. Of course, it is an important subject, but... If there was some way to cut the intro to, I'd say about 2/3 of its present size, I think that would look good. Otherwise, looks great to me. - The Bushranger (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the ideal length in my opinion is that which you have on the battlecruisers list. That being said, I think if you cut about four sentences that would help tremendously. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, this list (and therefore the introduction) is covering nearly 50 ships and a half dozen unfinished designs over the span of 60+ years of naval expansion, the BC list covers 7 ships and 3 unfinished designs over barely more than 25 years. The lead is going to have to be significantly longer than in the BC list by the very nature of the significantly larger topic it's covering.

That being said, I have trimmed down the second and third paragraphs. Does that look any better? Also, would the addition of a second image to the lead make it less of a "wall-o-text?" Parsecboy (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I think it's rather better now, and with the extensiveness of the subject matter, agree that not much more trimming could be reasonably done. More images are always good, as long as they don't produce blocks of white space through interference (admittedly, I'm not the best judge of that, having a wider-than normal monitor). - The Bushranger (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, my monitor is larger than usual as well. I was hoping to find a picture of at least Scharnhorst and Gneisenau together (or any WWII capital ships together) to fit with the image currently in the lead, but that doesn't seem available, unfortunately. Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support No problems reported with alt text, dab links, or external links. One nitpick: there seems to be varied instances of "broken up" and "scrapped" appearing in the fate section in the tables, unless there is a notable difference between the two I would suggest picking one of the two terms and sticking with it; otherwise note the difference in the article somewhere. Also, it may be worth noting somewhere that while the generally accepted version of the Bismark has her sunk in action against the British, there are those who say that the battlewagon was scuttled to prevent her from falling into British hands. s TomStar81 (Talk) 03:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I believe the scuttling theory is pretty much "on the fringe" (although of course I may be mistaken), so I'd think it would be best as an in-article topic; especially since, either way, the proximate cause of sinking was the British. ;) - The Bushranger (talk)
    • Hence why I said "destroyed", not "sunk" or "scuttled" :p That being said, I believe the opposite is true, Bushranger. There have been a couple of expeditions with ROVs small enough to enter the ship, and both have concluded that shellfire and torpedoes didn't cause enough damage and flooding to sink the ship (for instance, see this NYT article about the Cameron expedition). You are correct, though, that the proximate cause of sinking was the British ships. Not like the Germans were going to just up and sink her for the hell of it :) Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Oh, and as for the "broken up/scrapped" thing, I was just going for some variety of word choice. Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: This article is very good in my opinion and meets the A class criteria. I have only one comment which I feel needs to be addressed, then I will be happy to support:
  • there is some inconsistency in terminology: you use "First World War" in the Nassau class section, but then in other sections including the Brandenburg class and Helgoland class sections you use "World War I". I think you should use World War I, as you use "World War II" not "Second World War", so it would seem to make sense to use the similar term. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed, thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support: My concern has been addressed. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - this is probably ready for FLC. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:02, 18 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 07:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Order of Saint Hubert (Bavarian)

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... it fills another wikigap, relating to the War of the Bavarian Succession and sundry other spaces. I look forward to your helpful comments. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• I thought you don't like named references? You have a named reference for "Tagore, p. 25" but are lacking them for "Boulton, p. 605." and "Rudge, "Military Orders of St. Hubert."". I think this needs fixing. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't like them. But Tagore refs are sequential, so I used them. Boulton and Rudge are not sequential, so the named refs are confusing there (IMO) Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I know you don't like them! But have a look at the FAC review of the Battle of Dürenstein. Here named references are being introduced by fellow reviewers. I think you should reconsider your taste. I also feel somewhat strongly about separating information augmenting footnotes from citations. Have a look at your second note please it reads "Alban Butler. The lives of the fathers, martyrs, and other principal saints. Dublin: James Duffy, 1866, p. 63; Hugh Chisholm, "Knighthood: Orders of Knighthood (Bavaria)." Encyclopedia Britannica. New York, The Encyclopaedia Britannica Co., 1910-11. Volume 15. p. 863; William Guthrie, John Knox and James Ferguson date the battle in 1447 (A new geographical, historical, and commercial grammar... London: Vernon & Hood [etc., etc] 1801. p. 563)." The piece of information "William Guthrie, John Knox and James Ferguson date the battle in 1447" is so hidden that it adds little value from a readers perspective. Right now this and the named references are issues that I feel should be addressed.MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
      • that was one reviewer, done counter to the MOS (agreed-upon format) and I'm still steamed. The notes were consistent entirely. I am categorically opposed to not putting the full cite in the first time, because of reliability issues. How can a reader know that a source is reliable if there is only an author and a page number? It requires paging down to the bibliography, finding it, then finding my place again in the article.
        • Steamed? I assume this means upset? That is not my intention. However I don't understand why you don't want to separate footnotes and citations. From a readers perspective I think the article would benefit. I as a reader I could tell that there is more information by clicking the [Notes 7]. I would never assume that there is more information to read when stumbling across a [7]. These are just examples. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
          • yes, steamed means upset. I wasn't upset with you, certainly not. I always assume there is more information if there is a [7], even if it is just the citation. But I read citations before I read the article. Well, after the lead at least, because I can tell if the article is worth reading or not. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

as far as footnote 2 is concerned, this is a controversy on the date, which I didn't feel was worth elaborating in the text, but it should be in a note. This is a standard method of annotating a dispute. I'll check the footnotes to see if there are mistakes, but I was pretty thorough with this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• • See if this is clearer now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
• Check the external links please MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The one was under external links, so I deleted it.
• Alt text is partly missing MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, alt text is no longer required, but I added it anyway Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Support I support A-Class even though I fail to convince you on the style of references MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Alt text may not be required at FAC, but we pride ourselves on harsh standards, so I expect that alt text will be required for milhist articles passing ACR for the foreseeable future.
    • Is there a problem with the alt text? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
      • No, just remaking that I will continue to hold alt text to be necessary for passage of an ACR. I suspect that the criteria will come back into use down the line, and when it does I want to be in a position to brag that milhist articles already meet the reinstated criteria. Since our project prides itself on going above the call on matters of article quality I think it a good thing that alt text is still included, which is what I meant in the above comment. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • What exactly is the US equivalent to the ducat, reichsthaler, and thalers? The article does not say, but I am interested to know. Additionally, what would the cost be today when adjust for inflation? Is there any way to figure that out? TomStar81 (Talk) 15:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    • These are the basic currencies (like pound sterling, or dollar or yen) for various parts of the Holy Roman Empire. I'll add the equivalencies in a note in the article. Have to find my old copy of Murray. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
      • okay, a gold ducat is 4 florins 18 kreuzer in some parts of the empire (in 1786) and 5 florins 10 kreuzer in other parts (Bavaria included). An imperial ducat is gold, weight o 60 assay. According to J Reichard, An Itinerary of Germany, 1819. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Well that's a start, but it still leaves us with the problem of modern currency calculations: most of us can not calculate currency outside of our own country, or in my case, can only translate currency roughly from one system to another (In may case, this would be roughly translating US currency into Mexican currency). Is there any way to figure a rough calculation from their currency system to a more modern system for a better idea of the cost involved? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
          • I have no idea. Is there a convert template that can do that? A thaler was supposed to be "equivalent" to a dollar, at least in name. (thaler/dollar). The 1800 dollar had 0.77344 ounce pure silver, but it was of course silver. See here So if we can convert a ducat weight 60 assay in gold to a dollar weighing .77344 ounces in silver, then we're set. That math is beyond me. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
            • I am not aware of any conversion template, but Wikipedia is large enough that we ought to have a project or two out there with members in a better position to answer the question. Off the top of my mind, Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics comes to mind as a probably place to get such an answer. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I left a message there, but I'm not holding my breath on a reply. On the other hand, I'm not sure what the value of figuring out the conversion to the dollar, then or now. In 1810, 200 gold ducats was a lot of money, and few people would ever have that much. Even if a ducat was a dollar, it was still beyond the reach of most people in ordinary jobs, who might make 200 dollars in a lifetime. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Wow, I figured that the amount would be something like two grand in the states, but that was five digit figure. I am impressed. At any rate, everything is now in order insofar as I am concerned, so I offer my support. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comments: Overall I believe that this article meets the A class criteria. I have a couple of comments, however:
  • the opening sentence seems a bit cumbersome, could some of the alternative names be included in a footnote? Also the first sentence is very long, could a full stop be added somewhere.
  • there is a difference between the bolded name (Military Order of Saint Hubert) and the article name (Order of Saint Hubert), should this be so?
  • in the Partial list of recipients seciton, can you please check the date in this sentence: "Friedrich (VI.) Joseph Ludwig Landgraf u. Prinz zu Hessen-Homburg (1769-18290"? [The bracket needs to be closed and the date fixed, as well as an endash being added];
  • the Grandmasters section, could a citation be added to this?
  • should the Explanation of currency section be a Level 2 heading as it is? It looks a bit strange coming directly under a heading of the same level that has no content. I'd suggest changing it to a Level 3 heading and labeling it "Footnotes", but it is just a suggestion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. The citation in the grandmasters section is cumbersome, but I couldn't figure out what else to do with it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support: all my comments have been addressed. Well done. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:06, 17 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.

---

HMAS Australia (1911)

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

Promoted. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... Saberwyn and I have essentially reworked the article from the ground up. We intend to submit this to FAC if this passes ACR so comments on style, etc. are encouraged.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comment - "Moreover, the ship's ventilation system was designed for conditions in Europe, and was inadequate for the climate in and around Australia." -- was this ever fixed during her career? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No it wasn't. I'm glad I wasn't on board during her operations around New Guinea! Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments I've contributed a few paragraphs to this article's redevelopment, so am not neutral enough to vote (though I think that Saberwyn and Sturmvogel have done great work and the article is A class). I will offer some comments though:
  • While the statement that Australia's scuttling was "the only time the Australian military has been affected by a disarmament treaty" is cited to a deeply reliable source, I'm not sure if it's correct. According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade the Australian Army destroyed its stock of landmines after Australia signed the Ottawa Treaty.
    • I'm happy to get rid of the original statement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I've removed the statement from the lead, and qualified it in the body by adding "until the 1997 Ottawa Treaty banning the use of anti-personnel mine."...can we get a cite saying Australia was affected? -- saberwyn 00:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I've cited Australia's signature of the treaty, but that really doesn't fully support the statement that it was the only other time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think that both photos of the ship's 'A' turret are needed - the large size of these photos (particularly the first one) causes them to conflict with the infobox on my 24" monitor. I'd suggest using the second photo as it shows 'A' turret, one of the wing turrets and an aircraft and is of surprisingly high resolution
    • Done--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The 'Stevens' in 'Stevens claims' should be identified in the body of the article
    • Done -- saberwyn 21:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that the article should say that the East Asiatic Squadron moved to the east rather than 'westwards'
    • Oops :) -- saberwyn 21:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The statement in the lead that "Admiralty overcaution over the German ships' predicted movements and repeated diversions to support the capture of German colonies in New Guinea and Samoa meant that the battlecruiser did not have the opportunity to engage the enemy squadron before their destruction" doesn't appear to be borne out by the article's text. It would seem that Australia was used to support landing operations and was then retained in the western Pacific in case the Germans (whose position was largely unknown) headed for Australia, which was probably their most attractive target. This seems to me to have been a reasonable use of the ship given the limited intelligence on German movements, and the negative slant of the lead should probably be amended (particularly given that the Germans went out of their way to avoid Australia, which indicates that she achieved the main mission for which she was acquired).
    • For the record, I hate, hate, hate writing lead sections. Can someone uninvolved with the article take what's there and turn it into something that accurately reflects the article? -- saberwyn 21:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
      • How about something like, "However, German concerns about Australia's superority over their force led to the decision to steer well clear of the south-west Pacific, resulting in Australia fulfilling her role of defending her namesake continent by her mere presence."? I would suggest something about a fleet in being, but a fleet-in-being of one ship, well... - The Bushranger (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
        • See reply to Dank. How does it look now?
          • Lookin' good. - The Bushranger (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The performance of the battecruisers at Jutland should be noted as this had implications for her post-war service Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Strictly speaking, I'm not sure that that was a real issue. Her obsolete 12-inch guns and expense seem to be the primary factors. But don't forget that the UK had a limited tonnage available under the Washington Treaty and Australia was certainly more obsolete than Lion or Princess Royal, both of which were scrapped.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Just a quick comment re: the treaty bit; the first edition of the Oxford Companion was published in 1995, two years before the Ottawa treaty was signed. Presumably it was missed in the subsequent printing. Parsecboy (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
• How does the fact that the Indefatigables having a wider arc of fire than the Invincibles make them inferior to Von der Tann? I assume you mean that the Invincibles, which couldn't really fire "over the shoulder" were inferior, not the Indefatigables? It might also be worth spelling out what made the ships inferior to Von der Tann (I know they had much thinner armor and a smaller-caliber secondary battery, but not everyone else does ;)
• Also, did the fact that the RN had obtained the specifics for Von der Tann before Australia and New Zealand were laid down cause any changes to be made on these ships? If not, then that line needs to go since it's more or less irrelevant.
  • The RN doesn't seem to have made any changes in reaction to Von der Tann for Australia and New Zealand. Their armor was rearranged somewhat and another protected deck was added, but these were based on Lion. I'd still like a better accounting of why the Indefatigable design was chosen rather than the larger and more expensive Lion. My guess is money, but I'd like to see some documentation, if I had my druthers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I've clarified this. The issue is that the Indefatigable design wasn't an improvement on the Invincible design, and was known to be outdated by the time work started on Australia. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I was under the impression that the lengthening of Indefatigable allowed all four turrets to fire on the broadside, while Invincible was limited to only three turrets. Isn't that a somewhat significant improvement? Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
        • The Invincibles were capable of limited cross-deck fire, if the damage to the deck was accepted. The Indefatigables just improved the arcs, but still suffered the damage to deck.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• That's all for now, I'll read through more later. Parsecboy (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comments Looks good, but there are a still a few missing ndashes. I changed most of the hyphens but got fatigued YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I whacked it with a dash-fixing script I found. Feel free to unto if I've buggered it up. -- saberwyn 06:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • according to the Featured article tool, there are a couple of dab links that need fixing: [31];
    • Think all have been caught. -- saberwyn 21:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • external links all work (no action required);
  • on my screen there is a large amount of whitespace in the Modifications section due to the placement of the image directly below the infobox (might just be me, though);
    • Shifted left, but we now might have some sandwiching between image and infobox on smaller monitors. Revert if problematic. -- saberwyn 06:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think alt text is required anymore, so no action required with this really, however some images appear to have it in this article, but others don't;
  • not all the refs are in numerical order (don't know if this is a requirement, but it makes it look better in my institutionalised opinion)...An example where they are not ordered is in the North Sea operations section where # 78 comes before #74;
    • That's likely a second, or later, use for #74.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
      • No, what Rupert appears to mean is a sentance that ends "... foobar.^[78][74]" I've seen bot/script edits around that easily fix this problem, but for the life of me don't know what/where to find/request this. Worse comes to worst, I'll sit down in a few days and try to fix this manually. -- saberwyn 21:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
        • • Yes, that's what I mean. Its not a war stoper though, and I certainly wouldn't not support the article because a couple of citations are standing out of place on the parade ground. :-) AustralianRupert (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
            • Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser appears to have that capability, and LilHelpa has kindly whacked the artice with it. -- saberwyn 21:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Acquisition section there is a red link for "Australia Squadron". I am a land lubber, so I don't know, but we currently have an article on Australia Station, are these the same? If so, one could redirect to the other so you have a blue link;
    • They are similar, but not the same. The Australia Station was the term used for Australia and surrounding waters in the context of naval defence from 1859 to at least 1958. The Australia Squadron was a fleet of British warships assigned to patrol this region and defend Australia's maritime borders between 1859 and 1913 (when the arriving RAN took over). -- saberwyn 06:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Post war section there is a redlink to "Australian Air Corps". I've not heard of this force, is it meant to be Australian Flying Corps (in which case it is the forerunner to the RAAF)?
    • According to the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History, the Australian Air Corps was an intermediary step between the Australian Flying Corps (disbanded c. 1919) and the RAAF (formed 1921). -- saberwyn 06:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Seen. Page 59 in my version. Good spot. I wonder if it is worth creating a stub, or if, like Australian Flying Corps, it should just be redirected to RAAF. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I've created a redirect to the RAAF article for now. The AAC barely lasted a year so it doesn't justify its own article to the same extent as the AFC, which I will get round to creating one day... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Decomissioning section there is a citation needed tag that needs dealing with relating to the issue with the landmines mentioned above;
    • Is this worth keeping? I honestly don't think that it's all that notable.
  • In the Decomissioning seciton, I think that there is a word missing in this sentence: "The battlecruiser had to be made unusable for warlike activities within six months of the treaty's ratification, then disposed of by scuttling: Australia did not have the facilities to break her up for scrap, and the British Empire's share of target ships was taken up Royal Navy vessels" (there should be a "by" in between "taken up" and "Royal Navy vessels");
    • Oops. Fixed -- saberwyn 06:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • As per above, some of the page ranges in the citations still need endashes added to them, # 122 for instance "Sears, in Stevens, The Royal Australian Navy, pp. 56-7"
    • See reply to YellowMonkey. -- saberwyn 06:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, that is it from me. Good work so far with this. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems with external links. One dab link needs to be located and if at all possible fixed. Virtually all of your images are in need of alt text. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    • WP:ALT has been delisted as a guideline and isn't required until they decide what is useful alt text (see discussions on that talk page). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm aware of that, but I like to think that we can include alt text here so that when the standards are reintroduced we will be ahead of the curve. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I think I've got most of them. -- saberwyn 10:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • That is an ex-dablink. -- saberwyn 21:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support Alright then, I'm happy. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - The Bushranger (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• What does everyone think of linking the first HMAS to Glossary of nautical terms#H Glossary of nautical terms#HMAS and adding HMAS to the glossary? WP:LEAD says to "use as few links as possible" in the bolded repetition of the title, but few isn't none, and linking seems like the standard way to solve the problem that some readers will know what it means and some won't. If we use a note, as some articles do to explain the prefix, the reader won't know whether they need to click on the note or not until they actually click on it. If we take a sentence to explain what it means, that's not as "tight" as some FAC reviewers need the lead to be, since readers from that country who are interested in ships will probably already know what it means. - Dank (push to talk) 19:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I think HMAS would be an unnecessary link, as I believe that not knowing exactly what the acronym stands for is not going to drastically compromise a reader's understanding of the ship's history. -- saberwyn 10:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay, how about in SMS Helgoland? - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I prefer the Helgoland solution even less. -- saberwyn 21:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Just a personal preference, and one there's not much support for, but maybe you'll agree: I don't like [nb 1] (nota bene), because I try to take the consistent position that anything most of our readers won't understand should be explained, linked or omitted. "note 1" is popular; I prefer [a], [b], etc. - Dank (push to talk) 23:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm personally a fan of roman numerals in curved brackets, (i.e. (I), (II), etc), as implemented with {{note}}/{{ref}}. However, this is an experiment with the references group formatting, which has the advantages of automatically 'naming' the footnotes, with the disadvantage that they come in the form of [foo 1], [foo 2], where foo is the text used to define the group. If it gets too problematic, I'll probably go back to manual note/ref. -- saberwyn 10:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Totally agreed, I like roman numerals too, and if there are a lot of notes, doing [a], [b] by hand really gets tiresome. - Dank (push to talk) 12:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • On a slightly related note, I think footnote 2 could probably be incorporated into the text. -- saberwyn 10:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC) I've integrated it into the text, how does it look? -- saberwyn 10:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Rather than make suggestions for the lead, I'm going to make some changes in one edit then revert myself. If you like the changes you can restore them. - Dank (push to talk) 00:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Like most, but making some tweaks to keep things clear (i.e., the second collision was after Jutland, and the phrase "fired in anger" is the one used to describe the two 'incidents' in most of the sources I've seen) and attempting to incorporate Nick-D's and The Bushranger's concerns/comments above. What do you think? -- saberwyn 10:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Looks great. This "anger" thing is the hardest thing to deal with, for me, in military articles: how do we convey that we understand and respect but don't share the sentiments of the time? (in this case, the superstition that the ship could get angry). - Dank (push to talk) 12:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
      • My understanding of the phrase "Fire in anger" is that its a term used to describe a deliberate, non-training, non-exercise use of a weapons system. As such, its less "A bunch of sailors shaking fists at 'those damn people, take that!' while the guns go off", and more "When we fire this, there is a very good chance that those on the receiving end will be hurt and/or killed. This is intentional". Writing up an article on Fire in anger is on my to-do list, if I can find the sources treating it as a concept instead of just using the phrase. -- saberwyn 12:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Are there links available for at load and at deep load? Don't see them on wp or wikt. - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • There's a couple of different 'subtypes' listed at Displacement (ship), but I'm not 100% sure how those terms correspond with those Sturmvogel used (I think, "standard" and "full" respectively, but I'll leave it to the master). -- saberwyn 12:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Sturmvogel, please use "4-inch guns" instead of "4 in guns", which a lot of readers are going to stumble on. (I've never been a fan of the convert template, but I'm starting to hate it with a passion ... if I could have searched for "4 in guns", it would have taken me seconds to fix this myself.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Other definitions that would be helpful (if we don't reword): BVIII*, en echelon, MK II
  • "MK" is abbreviation for the designation Mark...it has been spelled out in the body of the article, but left abbreviated in the infobox. I've replaced en echelon (meaning, I think, offset diagonally) with a description of the turrets' locations. I don't know what BVIII* means, but assume its the designation for the particular turret design. -- saberwyn 10:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: "En Echelon" is indeed the diagonally offset arrangement - and the proper term for the turret arrangement. BVIII* is in fact the Mark designation of the turrets, the "*" indicating a slight improvement over the BVIII model. This link has more detail on them (down at the bottom of the page). - The Bushranger (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• More readers will understand "takeoff" than "flying off"; is the second term more precise?
  • Comment: The terminology of the time was "flying off" - in fact, as mentioned in the article, the ramps installed on the turrets were offically "flying-off platforms" (-it might be an idea to change "ramps" to "platforms" in the article, now that I think about it), and (as an aside) quite a few early aircraft carriers had short "flying-off decks" in the bow. ...also I'd hate to be flying anything off of P and Q turrets! - The Bushranger (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I try to take a consistent position that the writing should be easy to read for people living now. If a modern Australian is likely to have heard the term, even if it's a historical term, then that's fine. If they haven't, then I'd usually like to see the term linked, explained, or omitted. - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing the connection between "the least obsolescent of her class" and the rest of the paragraph it's in.
• I have no problem with single quotes around 'P', but I think 'Fleet Units' risks the wrath of MOS; see "Double or single" at WP:MOS#Quotation marks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • My understanding of quotation marks as used in AusEng is that double (") quotes are used when you're quoting someone, and single (') quotes are used for emphasis or highlighting of a term. -- saberwyn 21:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The section I linked at MOS was written by a prominent Australian, I believe. There are a lot of good arguments both ways, and I've seen single quotes sneak through at FAC many times, so maybe it will be okay. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• "prompted by the potential for Japan to enter the war" could use a little more explanation for most readers. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Clarified, I hope. -- saberwyn 10:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• I changed one instance of Von Spee to von Spee for consistency, but the rule I follow is from AP Stylebook, "foreign names": usually lowercase, but follow individual preferences for how the name is spelled in English: bin Laden, but Van Gogh. I don't know what rule Australian copyeditors follow but I bet it's the same; I don't know if von Spee had a preference. - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The sourcs I used had lowercase "von", unless it was the start of a sentance, of course. I must have missed that one. -- saberwyn 21:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• It's true that a colon can sometimes replace a semicolon, but not in the places you're using them; [for instance, a colon wouldn't work here!] starting in the North Sea operations section, please replace the colons by semicolons, full stops/periods or dashes as appropriate. (Exceptions: the colons are fine before "two for a year, one for eighteen months ..." and "the United Kingdom, the United States of America ...") - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah! Complex punctuation... my other weakness! I've had a crack at it, how does it look now? -- saberwyn 10:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• "These duties were so monotonous, one sailor was driven insane." This needs rewording; tedium doesn't actually cause mental illness, and "insanity" in American English at least is meaningless except in a legal sense. - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Phrasing used by the source, and the lack of context means I'm reluctant to change it. -- saberwyn 21:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm supporting at A-class, and I won't vote at FAC when I'm this involved, but I don't think that will pass FAC (if the reviewers are paying attention). "Insane" isn't in the DSM or ICD, and even if it were, boredom couldn't "drive" you there. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• 'happy ship' seems too informal, and double quote marks are needed if you keep it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Rephrased. How does it look now? -- saberwyn 10:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• I don't know what "paid off into reserve" means. - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Its BritEng for decommissioned and assigned to a reserve fleet. -- saberwyn 10:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support for an excellent article, after the "citation needed" is addressed. I hope you'll consider my comments but this isn't FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • To all the questions above: I like everything in the diff of your changes. I asked another guy who's done a lot of copyediting work about "night-time"; we think the hyphen is going to the same early grave as a lot of other hyphens these days, but it's not wrong, either. - Dank (push to talk) 17:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Question for the masses: I'm a little interigued by the lead image (which is from the Library of Congress). I expanded it while traying to come up with alt text, and have found something odd... if that's Australia, why is she flying the Union Flag, and not the Australian National Flag at the jackstaff? -- saberwyn 10:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • That's a good point. The State Library of Victoria has a photo of her flying the Australian National Flag on her bow. Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Although there was a bit of confusion over what flags Australian warships should fly, it was decreed in 1911 that RAN ships would fly the British White Ensign as an ensign, and the Australian flag as the jack (see Australian White Ensign for details). Is there a chance that the ship is another battlecruiser (likely Indefatigable or New Zealand) and the Library of Congress (or a previous holder of that copy, as it was more likely them that wrote 'H.M.A.S. "Australia"' over the bottom left corner of the image) has misidentified it? -- saberwyn 10:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this is actually Indefatigable, based on the two spotting tops. Australia and New Zealand had only one, on the foremast. I'll change it out when I get a chance during lunch. I'm also thinking about adding a plan drawing to show the layout of the turrets. What do y'all think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Diagram showing the turrets would be brilliant. Swap it for the 'A' turret image and move that elsewhere? -- saberwyn 21:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. I moved the turret picture down to the next section on modifications. I'm not sure that that's really the best place for it, but maybe we could swap it for the 1913 delivery picture which isn't anything spectacular, although appropriate to that section, if it clutters things up to much. Thematically it would be best in the post-Jutland or postwar sections, but they're already pretty full.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Support not sure whats preventing this from being closed but it looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 15:36, 13 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.

---

• Promoted TomStar81 (Talk) 02:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Operation Sandblast

Nominator(s): Marcd30319 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because USS Triton (SSRN-586) has successfully received an A-Class review and since the core Operation Sandblast was originally part of this USS Triton article and had gone through a previous GA review together as a single article, it is my belief that this Operation Sandblast will meet the same criteria as an A-Class article, and serve as a complement to its parent article on the USS Triton. Therefore, based on my previous experience on the A-Class assessment review of the USS Triton article, I have endeavored to avoid over-linking, I believe that my sourcing to be reliable, there are no disambig links, there are no re-directs, and alt text for all images have been duly incorporated. Thank you and I look forward to our collaboration. Marcd30319 (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with dab links. A number of external links are identified as suspicious, including at least one link reported as dead, please check and advise. One image icon is missing alt text, please add this to the article forthwith.
    • Dead link: The dead link pertained to Presidential Foreign Visits from the the U.S. State Department web site. I was able to located an archive link with the same information, and it has been incorporated into the footnote in question. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Alt text: I think the image in question is with the U.S. Navy portal. I will locate and add. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Suspicious Link: These may be links in the Triton Memorial section that were also troublesome for the USS Triton (SSRN-586) article. I will investigate this. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • If I recall correctly, we have a operation template you may consider using for the article, it should allow for a basic summary of the operation, its duration, and other details of this nature. I will not count this suggestion against you should you decide to refrain from using it.
    • If there is an appropriate template, this would be great. Please provide the link and I will grab it. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I added Template:Operational plan Infobox. I believe this is the appropriate template that you were referring to. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • There are no links to anything in the initial opening paragraphs, may I suggest adding a few?
    • I wasn't sure about this. I didn't want to over-link. I will revisit this. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • There are still some short sections in the article, it would be a good idea to see about some consolidation of these sections.
    • I could collapse Mission origins into Mission background, although my intention was to concentrate on the man (Captain Beach) and the ship (Triton) in Mission background. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I remove the five sub-sections in Significant post-1960 naval circumnavigations, although you may lose some thematic clarity.Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Scientific accomplishments and Vital national interests might be able to be merged, although you may lose some thematic clarity. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Mission history : I am hesitant to collaspe any of these sub-sections since each phase of the voyage had its own districtive series of events and themes. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Was there any particular reason for choosing sandblast as the codename? The article does not say, but I am curious.
    • Captain Beach was also curious about how the Navy Department came up with the code name of Sandblast for the circumnavigation mission. It was explained to him that taking his ship around the world submerged would "take a lot of sand" on the crew's part to be successful. Also, Sandblast would serve as Beach's personal code name. As the captain noted: ""Most beaches are full of sand, I was informed." See Captain Beach's account, p. 44. This seemed rather challenging to capture. At least with Operation Sunshine, there was a certain perverse logic in using that as the code name for the first submerged voyage under the North Pole. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the quotes in the article could be trimmed even further, but I am going to wait and see what others think about the presence of the quotes before I decide whether or not to make an issue out of this. As a practical matter, I can understand the importance of the quotes to the article, hence my decision for a second opinion on the matter. Note that this comments is limited to the presence of the block quotes in the article only.
    • I will certainly like to hear back about this. I tried to keep the quotes to a minimum, but this is a highly personal story for all involved, and I also wanted to use the boxed quote for each section to set the appropriate tone for that section.
  • How do you extract oxygen from seawater? The article doesn't say, but I am curious.
    • Triton expelled its foul air through the air induction mast (snorkel) and pumped in fresh air through the snorkel which would replenish its onboard oxygen flasks. Regarding submarine extracting oxygen from seawater, I never did any work in this area while I was employed at General Dynamics Electric Boat, but it may be some form of electrolysis. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Do the SSBN's making use of the Polaris missile have a name? I suspect these are probably George Washington or Ethan Allen boats, but a specific sub class mention would be nice.
    • The SSBN class that were coming on line at the time of the circumnavigation (1960) would be the George Washington class although I believe several units of the Ethan Allen class had been authorized, too. I will look into this, and make the appropriate corrections. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Prior to the awarding of the PUC to Triton, which other boat received the PUC for peacetime ops?
    • The first peacetime PUC was awarded the USS Nautilus (SSN-571) for completing the first submerged cross under the North ole in 1958 (Operation Sunshine). There is a new book on this mission, The Ice Diaries, by the late Captain William R. Anderson, on this mission. The ship that was awarded the most PUCs was the nuclear-powered special ops submarine USS Parche (SSN-683) with a total of nine! Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Otherwise it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 21:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you! Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support I remembered that Parche had the most PUCs, I read that in the book Blind Man's Bluff if I recall correctly. Wow, what we did in the days of the Cold War. Anyway, my final suggest to you would be to work in a mention of USS Nautilus (SSN-571) receiving the first peacetime PUC. Other than that, this looks like an A-class article. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Marcd30319 (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• I mention this as a comment since it is a related article and included under See Also - is the List_of_USS_Triton_submerged_circumnavigation_crew pertinent. Are all notable crew already mentioned in the main article?GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Crew list: I included this see also because the entire crew is authorized to wear the Presidential Unit Citation, and it seemed appropriate to link this. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Understand your reasoning there even if I don't like the crew list - I will deal with my issues with the crew list through that article GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Significant post-1960 naval circumnavigations: My intent was to show other naval circumnavigations, not just submerged ones. By that criteria, only the Soviet entry would be apropos. The 2003 around the world voyage by the Chinese PLA Navy showed the growing Chinese naval activity on the world stage and enhanced ts prestige. Ditto the Indian and Australian naval circumnavigations around the world. The UNITAS exercises promoted regional goodwill while circumnavigating South America. Ditto the PLAN's 1997 circumnavigation of the Pacific. I spent a considerable amount of time researching this. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That would belong under topics relating to naval power - which is why I deleted those entries.GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Quotations. You've got centred quotes in boxes, centured quotes without boxes, italicised quotes, non-italicised quotes, and one quote on the left side in large quote (") marks. I think the formatting of the various quotations in the article should be standardised (unless there is some method to the madness I've missed in my quick glance at the article). -- saberwyn 23:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Centered quotes in boxes: These are used to introduce each main section and set the tone therein. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Centured quotes without boxes: Quotes from Captain Beach's book, the published log book, or Captain Beach's preface to Dr. Weybrew's book. Essentially, anything that has been published.
  • Italicised quotes: Used for official or institutional citation (i.e., Presidential Unitation Citatio, Legion of Honor, and honorary Sc.D). Marcd30319 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

MoS says italics in quotes only where present in originalGraemeLeggett (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • Okay, an excellent point and I will do do. Also, I am committed to not allow this to get messy.Marcd30319 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • One quote on the left side in large quote (") marsks: Added to provide visual balance since that sub-section {Across the Pacific) had only one image. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

General Request: TonStar81, is there a way of sectioning off comments so they can be addressed on a more individualized way? Otherwise, we are going to generate an ever-expanding laundry list of comments and responses that will make it increasingly difficult to address outstanding issues or come to a common consensus. Also, it will make it easier to type responses since the frame jumps as I type, and I have difficulty keeping track of my responses. I am sure other are experiencing this, too. Thanks! Marcd30319 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Marc, we frown upon using section headers in ACRs unlike our peer reviews. We could encourage editors to use {{collapse}} when their concerns have been addressed which would help. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What would the problem be, as long as they are 4th-level (====) headers? This is really confusing. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that we copied our ACR list from the FAC example, so our ACRs - including this one - are listed in the same way that FACs are on a project review page. Adding the headers to the ACRs makes a long page even longer and can disrupt parts of the reviewing operations here and there, which is why we do not permit the headers at the ACR level. The solution here, as it is at FAC, is to use the boxes to hide the addressed comments. Try not to look at this as a hinderence, instead look at it from the perspective that anything worth having is worth working for. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• It's a good thing this article isn't overlinked because I'm sure that frozen food, coffee and potato are extremely important to the reader to help them further understand a naval submarine concept. --Brad (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Glad to see you on the hunt, Brad101. Marcd30319 (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Round 2 Review Comments
I have endeavored to capture the following issues:

• Dead link: The dead link pertained to Presidential Foreign Visits from the the U.S. State Department web site. I was able to located an archive link with the same information, and it has been incorporated into the footnote in question. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Alt text: Descriptive alt text added to the U.S. Navy portal. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Suspicious Links: I swapped out the text and links to Triton Memorial section with their opposite number on the USS Triton (SSRN-586) article. I will test to see if that corrects this problem. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Operation template: Is the operational plan template appropriate for a non-conflict military operataion such as Operation Sandblast? Marcd30319 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I added Template:Operational plan Infobox. I believe this is the appropriate template that you were referring to. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Wiki-links in the initial opening paragraphs: Done. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Sectional Reduction: Eliminated sub-sections in Mission overview and Mission accomplishments. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• SSBN class: Link to George Washington class submarine added. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Crew list: I have deleted the see also link to this article while retaining it in the USS Triton category listing. Please let me know what can be done to address your concerns while retaining it. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Significant post-1960 naval circumnavigations: After sleeping on this, I support this edit. The PLAN missions are captured elsewhere, and the INS Tarangini article addresses its around-the-world voyage. My long-range plans includes developing an article on Operation Northern Trident 2009 and expanding the UNITAS article. I won't split semantical hairs over what is or isn't naval power. I do think that giving coverage to the 1966 Soviet submarine around-the-world voyage is an important and appropriate addition. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Quotes: I eliminated italics from the quotes and I deleted the free-floating quote from Across the Pacific. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Code-name origins: TomStar81's suggestion is a good one, and I am incorporating it into the article under Mission overview. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Significant post-1960 naval circumnavigations: Changed to Significant circumnavigations by nuclear-powered ships and expanded. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless it is directly related to Op Sandblast (ie submarine activities), the section should be more concise. the list of ports visited is excessive, the ships officers are not relevant within the section either especially as there is an article on the USN activity. As for the Soviet subs, that is more relevant though again excessive detail and a strange bunching of refs at the end of the paragraph.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I propose that this section be re-branded 1966 Soviet submarine global circumnavigation and fold the rest of this section into Operation Sea Orbit.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Round 3 Review Comments
What is the current status of this review, and what outstanding issues remain to be resolved? Marcd30319 (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• 1966 Soviet submarine global circumnavigation: This section has been deleted following the launch of its own free-standing article. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I see nothing that should prevent this article from being an A-Class article in my opinion. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support: Looks like a very good article in my opinion. I just have a couple of very minor points. I am supporting because everything else looks fine to, but I request that you fix or consider fixing these before taking to FAC.
  • the lead looks like it is five paragraphs, but I think that there is a requirement for it to be no more than four paragraphs;
    • Done. Marcd30319 (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • According to the cite error tool, this ref might need to be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS: "First Submerged Circumnavigation 1960, p. B-5.", can you please check?
    • Done. Marcd30319 (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • you appear to have spaced emdashes, but per WP:DASH they should be unspaced. For instance in the "Mission history — Around the world submerged 1960" section header and in the block quote;
    • Done. Marcd30319 (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in relation to the comment about emdashes, in the Destination: Cape Horn section you use spaced endashes (sentence beginning "On 3 March..."). Consistency is required with the dashes, either use all spaced endashes, or all unspaced emdashes, please;
    • Done. Marcd30319 (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Destination:Cape Horn section you use the contraction "didn't", could you please replace the contraction with the full word as the contraction makes it sound a little unencyclopedic in my opinion.
    • Done. Marcd30319 (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway that is it from me. Good work. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2010 (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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 06:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Lester Brain

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Slight change of pace for me with someone more notable for his achievements in civil as opposed to military aviation (Chief Pilot at Qantas, first GM of TAA), but still a member of the RAAF reserve for more than 20 years, and a recipient of the King's Commendation for bravery under fire in WWII. Also another famous airman (think Charles Eaton and Les Holden) involved in the 1929 search for Charles Kingsford Smith and Charles Ulm and, ultimately, too other searchers who themselves became tragically lost. There's quite a bit there; any and all comments welcome as I think this has the legs for FA... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comments: No problems reported with dab links or external links. One image is in need of alt text, please add this forthwith. Otherwise the article looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Tks Tom, however the image already has alt text, and has done since the article was created. May be something with this infobox - any ideas? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Heh, sure enough, no-one had added an alt parameter to that particular template -- but guess what, I have now... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support Airplaneman ✈ 03:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comments: overall another excellent article in my opinion. I have a couple of comments, however:
  • Citation # 30 (Cadigan pp. 211-212), the title is not quite correct: it says "Man Among Mavericks", but it should be "A Man Among Mavericks"
    • Indeed it should, tks.
  • per Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Military terms the ranks don't seem to correctly capitalised in some instances (for instance in the lead, "Wing Commander" should be "wing commander"), although I seem to remember you've explained this variation to me before;
    • Yep, in the past, as long as it's consistent, it's been acceptable to capitalise ranks in all instances. I've found it especially clearer to do so while writing bios on Royal Naval Air Service personnel, where one could be a flight commander (i.e. a position, in command of a flight) but a equally a Flight Commander (i.e. a rank). Admittedly that's an extreme case but I still think always capitalising is simpler, and it's never been a stopper.
      • No dramas, makes sense when you explain it that way. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • could convert templates be added to the distances, e.g. in the Qantas section "580-mile route...by 284 miles". Also later "approximately 130 km east-south-east"
    • You caught me being lazy... ;-) Will do.
  • in the World War II section "nine Zero fighters strafed the harbour with cannon". Should it be "cannons"? — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
    • "Cannon" should be okay for singular or plural here. Tks for review, Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been explained/addressed. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - A superb article, very nice work, Ian. I could find nothing wrong with it. Parsecboy (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support I'm happy now. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:30, 9 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 06:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Naktong Bulge

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!^(talk) 04:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with alt text, external links, or dab links. Well done!
  • You've got a cn tag in the article, please see about addressing that. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 13:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comments:
  • images are all appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • in the lead, I think there is a missing word here: "...turning point in the war for North Korean forces" (should there be a "the" in front of North Korean?);
    • That's supposed to refer to all North Korean forces. Putting "the North Korean forces" would make it sound like only the NK 4th Division was affected by the turning point of the war. —Ed!^(talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Outbreak of war section, there is a missing word here: "closest force were 24th Infantry" (should be a "the" in front of 24th);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • the 24th Infantry should be wikilinked on first mention in the Outbreak of the war section also;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the North Korean advance section, this sentence does not provide details of how the advance was stopped: "American forces finally halted the North Korean advance". The next sentence talks about an ambush on US forces, so it is unclear how the American halted the advance;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Naktong Bulge section, I think this clause is missing something "any attempted crossings by PKA" (should there be a "the" before PKA?);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I think there is a typo here, but am not sure: "Mu and his division were highly decorated for the exploits" (I think "the" should be "their");
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Reinforcements section, this sentence seems to be missing something, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Can you please re-read and see if something can be done with it? "There was also virtually no provision for the wounded in the division, and began to come apart under these stresses. "
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Destruction of the bridgehead section this clause needs clarification: "unleashing everything the U.S. had against..." (my issue is that the U.S. surely had more than just what was being employed in this instance by one of its task forces). Perhaps reword to "The offensive began at 08:00 on August 17, when the US forces unleashed everything they had...";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the same section use of word "kicked off" is probably a little bit too informal (see above rewording";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Aftermath section, this clause seems indistinct: "...300 or 400 in each of its regiments". I think it would work better if you add the word "men";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • last sentence of the Aftermath section needs a citation;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • there is a slight inconsistency in how you treat numbers less than ten, for instance in the Aftermath section "2 captured..." then later "one missing". — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I have addressed all of your concerns. —Ed!^(talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support: — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 18:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I have slightly reworded the lead and a couple of other sentences, please check to see if you're happy with it.
    • It looks good to me. —Ed!^(talk) 20:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Some overlinking, for instance 24th Infantry Division is linked in the lead and Outbreak of War para, please check if there are other instances
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 20:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • In some places the prose is a little choppy, for instance in the North Korean advance para
    • I've reworked that para. —Ed!^(talk) 20:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • This sentence in the North Korean attack section could be reworked: "The North Korean attack caught the Americans, who were expecting an attack from further north, by surprise and threatened to split the American lines and disrupt supply lines to the north." Perhaps: Expecting an attack from further north, the North Korean attack caught the Americans by surprise, threatening to split the American lines and disrupt supply lines to the north.
    • Reworked and split that sentence. —Ed!^(talk) 20:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • This sentence in the Aftermath section should probably be rewritten: "Some thousands of the members of the division, conscripted South Koreans, deserted." Seems choppy.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway that's it from me. Overall another good article, well done. Anotherclown (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to all of your concerns. —Ed!^(talk) 20:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Support - looks good now. Anotherclown (talk) 03:05, 12 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 21:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Massachusetts in the American Civil War

Nominator(s): Historical Perspective (talk)

I recently completely a fairly rigorous expansion of this article as part of the American Civil War Task Force "to do" list. I believe it meets the criteria for A-class and would appreciate any comments, help, suggestions, etc. Thanks! Historical Perspective (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Sorry to take so long getting to this request. This is not really a subject that I know much about, so I am hoping that a few editors with specific knowledge will stop by and make some comments about content. I have placed a reminder on the ACW task force talk page asking for some more editors to get involved. Hopefully a few will stop by. Anyway, I have a few non specific comments:
  • there are no disambig links; external links all work (good work, no action required);
  • the portrait images need alt text per WP:ALT, although please see my comment below first (I'm not sure that the gallery is absolutely necessary);
  • is the gallery necessary? Per Wikipedia:IG#Image galleries, it would probably be best just to have the gallery in Commons and include the link at the bottom of the article as per the ACW portal;
  • the template at the bottom is very large, is there some way it could be collapsed?
  • is there any information on casualties?
  • regarding the recruitment process, is there some more information on how men were recruited? What standards were required?
  • the final sentence in the first paragraph of the Antebellum and wartime politics section needs a citation ("The radical ideas of Garrison and his followers created a national backlash both in the North and South and escalated regional tension prior to the war.")
  • the final sentence in the first paragraph of the War material section needs a citation ("Massachusetts played a large role as a supplier of weapons and equipment for the Union army".)
  • could the notable leaders section have some prose added to it?
  • is there anything that could be added about the impact and long term effects of the war upon the state, people, military organisations, etc?— AustralianRupert (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Response. Thanks so much for your comments and for posting a reminder. Much appreciated. I've addressed some of your suggestions and am working on others. Here's what I've done so far:

• Galleries don't support alt text. However, this is no longer an issue as I've removed the gallery per your suggestion. I think you're quite right in that this use of a gallery wasn't consistent with Wikipedia:IG#Image galleries. So, I've added a link to a Wikimedia Commons Category:Massachusetts in the American Civil War. It's under External links. I think that works.
• I collapsed the template by hiding it within a template list box. I'm not sure if this is the best way to do this. It does the trick. But if anyone knows a better way, let me know.
• Notable leaders section is now gone. The only reason for that was to hold the gallery. Nearly every notable leader who appeared in the gallery is discussed at some point in the article, so, even without their pictures, they're just about all covered.
• I've added citations in the two places you requested.
• As for casualties, recruitment and long term effects, that's going to require a bit of research. I'll get to work on it. Your point about long term effects is especially well taken. That would be important information to help wrap-up the article. I hope to add information on these subjects ASAP.

Thanks again! Historical Perspective (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Further Response. I've added some prose which, I think, addresses the remainder of your suggestions:

• I've written an "Aftermath" section which enumerates the casualties during the war and touches on some of the social, political and cultural repercussions that the war had in Massachusetts.
• Something on recruiting was a bit more tricky. I added a brief section "Recruiting the three-year regiments" which describes a few of the overall trends in recruiting in the state. When it comes to recruitment standards, I confess I have been able to find little information in that regard. To the best of my knowledge, recruits from Massachusetts needed only to be 18, but I can't find that spelled out anywhere.

I hope I've hit the key topics in your comments. If you think I need to include further information to improve the article, do let me know. Thanks! Best, Historical Perspective (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a great addition to me. Just one last point: the final part of the first paragraph in the Aftermath section needs a citation. Other than that I'd say it is well on its way. I'd like to get the opinion of someone with Civil War knowledge, though. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I added the source to the reference list but forgot to add the citation. It's there now. Historical Perspective (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Your images need alt text.
  • Could more be said about Massachusetts after the war? I would go to the end of reconstruction and explain the states position on that matter as well as the matter of civil rights. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Response. Regarding alt text, I think they all have it. Am I missing something?

• On adding info on Reconstruction, I'd be happy to do this to some extent. But I'm not sure I want to get into that in great detail. I think it would be going a little beyond the purview of the article "Massachusetts in the American Civil War." Massachusetts's involvement in Reconstruction and post-War civil rights could be an article unto itself. But there's no reason why I can't touch on the subject. I'll work something in. Thanks. Historical Perspective (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• I've just added two paragraphs regarding Reconstruction and civil rights (as pushed through by Sumner and other Radical Republicans). Reconstruction is a fascinating topic and it was difficult to pick and choose which points I wanted to include. But I think what I've added addresses your suggestion. Let me know if you think it needs more. Thanks! Historical Perspective (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Question Is the total popn of MA in the 1860s known? It would put into context how much of the populace enlisted YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Good point. I've added population data. Thanks. Historical Perspective (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I like it. The post war info helped to the article, IMO. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support all my concerns have been addressed above and I've had time to read over the article a few more times. Good work in my opinion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support Looks good, I can find no faults that would prevent its promotion. Top work. Anotherclown (talk) 16:48, 11 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 07:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Pyongtaek

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!^(talk) 02:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments on content: Have you consulted with Korean sources? It might shed more lights on what the NKPA were doing or if any actions by the South Korean units affected this part of the war. Jim101 (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • From what I understand, there weren't any South Korean units in the area. I have this on the next battle article chronologically Battle of Chonan that the South Korean Army largely abandoned the Western part of the Peninsula in favor of delaying the North Koreans from Pusan in the East. Only scattered forces were in the region, none significant enough to assist the 34th Infantry Regiment. —Ed!^(talk) 18:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • no dab links, alt text is present, ext links all work (no action required);
  • images seem to be appropriately tagged and licensed (no action required);
  • Citation # 29 is not linked, but all the others are;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • the lead sentence makes it sound like it was the second engagement that occured on July 6. Is this what you mean, or do you mean the second engagement of the war, which happened to occur on July 6?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • in the second sentence of the lead, the word "Victory" is capitalised, but this should not be so;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • This sentence in the lead is a little awkward: "The battalion encountered North Korean forces...and after a brief fight, was umable to fight..." (the issue is repeated used of the word "fight");
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • In the Background section, the subsection "Outbreak of War" should not be capitalised as such, it should be "Outbreak of war";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • suggest wikilinking "divisions" to Division (military unit) in first sentence of Outbreak section;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe the term "Far east" should be "Far East" as it is a proper noun; it is incorrectly capitalised in the Background section;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • In the Battle of Osan section, "Ansong-Pyongtaek line" should have an endash where the hyphen per WP:DASH;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • In the North Korean attack section, there is some inconsistency in designations. Sometimes you have A Company, then later Company A. Please be consistent, whichever one is used;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • In the North Korean attack section you use the term "ammo", I suggest you change this to "ammunition" as ammo is a colloquialism that probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • In the Aftermath section, this sentence is a little awkward: "Dean took the blame for the defeat himself, and historians consider him at least partially to blame for expecting one inexperienced battalion to hold the line against a numerically superior enemy who was well-trained" (issue is repeated use of the word "blame" in the same sentence, perhaps reword to "responsible").
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

—AustralianRupert (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I have responded to all of your concerns. —Ed!^(talk) 02:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support: all my comments have been dealt with. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support
  • Images, sourcing, and structure look good.
  • Performed a light copyedit for prose but quite satisfied overall: a lucid, succinct account of the battle.
  • One minor thing: The battalion regrouped at Pyongtaek itself, mostly a mass of disorganized soldiers without leadership.[29] demolishing a bridge north of the town before moving south. This appears to require a comma after "leadership" -- or is some text missing? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Clarified that sentence. —Ed!^(talk) 18:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comments
  • More needs to be said about the state of the US forces in the aftermath of WWII; many people do not realize exactly how poorly prepared the the US was to deal with the abrupt outbreak of the war. That factors in significantly with the article, since it was the pride and hubris of Truman and Louis that nearly lost us the war in Korea. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I've added the info you requested to the "Battle of Osan" section. How does it look now? —Ed!^(talk) 17:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support That's better. Thanks for the swift response. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:35, 9 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.

---

SMS Helgoland

Promoted Woody (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Another day, another German battleship, eh? That and we can't let the bloody birdfarms get ahead, can we? But seriously, I wrote this article over the past couple of months, and it passed GA a few days ago. It incorporates a good amount of detail from Seaman Richard Stumpf's diary, a sailor who served aboard the ship during the war. I look forward to all comments that help me prepare this article for an eventual FAC. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Conversions needed for displacement in the infobox
• Be sure to use the adjectival form (with the hyphen) for 12-inch, etc.
• Capitalize and link Kiel Canal.
• What's a flak gun?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Everything is done except for the 12-inch. Do you want me or Parsec to go through and change all the "12 in" to "12-inch"? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I think I've got all of these. However, the convert template apparently cannot handle the "abbr=on" and "adj=on" parameters at the same time, so I've removed most of them. Thanks for helping out, Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
      • So I've been told here by Tony that when the units are abbreviated, we don't use hyphens for adjectives. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comment - another source is needed for "According to the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, all four Helgoland-class battleships were disarmed and surrendered as prizes of war to the Allies as replacements for the ships scuttled in Scapa Flow" -- the treaty says that this was supposed to happen, but another source needs to confirm that it did, indeed, occur. (note that I am not disputing this, just pointing it out) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing that out. I've added a ref to confirm that they were in fact handed over. Parsecboy (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments, and if you'd prefer, I can just make edits and you can revert at will. Be aware that my FAC experience with ships is limited, and I'm not here to "make waves"; if you guys like to do things a certain way at FAC, that's fine. My goal is to give a broader perspective that may or may not be helpful.

Added later: I'm aware that reviewing and reviewers don't always have a positive impact on the writing process, and I don't want to be part of the problem, so I'd prefer to only do pre-FAC reviews when the editors say they have some interest in FAC, as is the case for this article. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Wouldn't German Imperial Navy be more accessible to an English-speaking audience in the first sentence than Kaiserliche Marine? The German term could be introduced below the introduction, I think. [Later addition ... I'm only getting about 15K ghits on "Kaiserliche Marine" when I restrict to English sources, so I believe the FAC reviewers will want to see German Imperial Navy first. 04:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)]
• Most readers are interested in who/what/where/when before they're interested in design improvements, so I would move the second sentence down, "Helgoland's design represented ...". Since this is headed to FAC, a third paragraph would be customary in the introduction; perhaps that could start its own paragraph. (More to come) - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC) [Later addition ... my thinking here may reflect a journalistic bias not shared by FAC reviewers. I'm not positive. 04:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)]
• Although it's unusual to link all or part of the title in the first sentence, I think it would be both clearer and less intrusive to link SMS than to have a note that the reader has to click on. I've bolded SMS in the lead at Kaiserliche Marine so that that link will serve well as a quick definition of the acronym. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• I've created a redirect from Military History Museum of the Bundeswehr to Militärhistorisches Museum der Bundeswehr, and I'd recommend using the former instead of the latter in the lead. My guess is that English sources tend to say "Kaiser-class" rather than "Emperor-class", so it makes sense to keep the German, but names of museums are probably going to be translated in most English-language sources. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• I'm going to remove some of the commas; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• General rule on "tightness": don't worry about deleting individual words just to make it shorter, but if very little meaning is lost when you get rid of a string of words, then rewrite it. Example: I changed (paraphrasing) "Fitting-out, consisting of A, B, and other things, ..." to "Fitting-out, including A and B, ..."
• Capitalization was probably wrong in the target article title Jade Estuary, now fixed. 19:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Some reviewers prefer all sections to have at least some text (the problem here is SMS_Helgoland#Actions in the North Sea), but it seems clear enough to me, and there's no harm in leaving it alone unless/until someone complains. - Dank (push to talk) 04:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• I'm pretty sure reviewers are going to ask that you be consistent with the initial "0" in "At 06:20", "At 5:00", etc. Some may ask you to link the first occurrence to 24-hour clock, although I don't think it's necessary. - Dank (push to talk) 16:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks a ton Dank, your review is really helpful. I've had some personal stuff in real life, so it might take me a bit to get to these, but everything looks good so far. Parsecboy (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
    • That's great. Okay for me to make the edits myself? You're welcome to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 04:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Sure, go right ahead. Parsecboy (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Okay done, and I'll make edits as I go. This article's intro says "Helgoland's design represented an incremental improvement over the preceding Nassau class ...", but Helgoland class battleship's intro says "The design was a significant improvement over the previous Nassau-class ships; they had a larger main battery—30.5 cm (12.0 in) main guns instead of the 28 cm (11 in) weapons mounted on the earlier vessels—and an improved propulsion system." These statements don't seem to me to sync up. If "significant" is a good description, then that sentence would work well in the intro of this article. - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Both "Admiral Ingenohl" and "von Ingenohl" are fine, "von" is just an honorific, but we're less likely to encounter resistance if you're consistent about whether to include the "von". I made the edit. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Ugh. People keep using the sclass template, I guess to help them get the orthography right, except that the template generally gets it wrong: it's Queen-Elizabeth-class battleships, not Queen Elizabeth-class battleships. Would it be simpler to encourage people to stop using the template or fix it? I'm not a template guy. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • But that is where you are wrong, there is no - in between Queen and Elizabeth in that ship's name. The template is actually correct and you won't get people to stop using the template. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Let's see what response we get at WT:MOS#Hyphen question, since this editor wants this article to pass FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Friedman (U.S. Battleships) doesn't have this orthography question to deal with, btw, he consistently writes "the North Carolinas" for "the North-Carolina-class battleships". I expect most people who might respond at MOS will want to follow Chicago (AP Stylebook is silent on this hyphen question, on pp. 359-360) and won't care much what battleship authors like ... but I could be wrong, I don't care much, and I'll happily do whatever gets it through FAC, if that's where the article editors are headed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay, although there were several opinions, in the end we didn't have any objection to MBK's {{sclass|Queen Elizabeth|battleship|2}}, which produces Queen Elizabeth-class battleship. - Dank (push to talk) 23:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Looks fine to me. Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• Sometimes you put the metric units first and sometimes second; it doesn't bother me but you may be asked to be consistent at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 01:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I usually put metric first since it's a German-topic article and they use metric. In some cases, like the 15 inch shell from either Barham or Valiant, their guns were measured in inches, not centimeters (it'd actually be 38.1 cm, but this is needlessly accurate) so I reversed the order. Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
    • FAC reviewers may want more consistency on this than you've got. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Honestly, we should use the official measurements, regardless of inconsistency or FAC reviewer preferences. If a ship has 15-inch (38 cm) and 88 mm (3.5-inch) guns (random numbers) they should be written as such, even though they are not consistent. Accuracy trumps consistency at this point, I feel. It's inaccurate to say the 'Helgoland' had 305 mm guns, because they were, in fact 12-inch guns.Cromdog (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, no, they were 30.5 cm, which comes out to 12.007874... inches. 12 inches comes out to 30.48 cm, so yes there is a valid reason for using specific figures first. Parsecboy (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I totally agree, both that we should use what the guns were commonly called (whether 12-inch guns or 30.5 cm guns or whatever), and that if a FAC reviewer said we needed to change all these to metric, we should push back rather than acceding. - Dank (push to talk) 01:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• tons of coal ... metric tons? - Dank (push to talk) 02:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Are you referring to the 1250 mentioned in Stumpf's diary? He doesn't say specifically, but I'd be willing to bet it was metric tons. Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
    • "Tons" is a word I don't use alone since it can mean 3 different things. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Do you think it would be more prudent to say "over 1,000 tons" since we can't say for certain which ton we're talking about, and in this case we wouldn't be as specific? Parsecboy (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
        • It's best to follow MOSNUM if you're headed for FAC, and MOSNUM says: "Use long ton or short ton and not just ton; these units have no symbol or abbreviation and are always spelled out. The tonne, 1000 kilograms, is officially known as the metric ton in the US. Whichever name is used, the symbol is t." So "tons" is out; "over 1,000 tonnes" would work. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• "the red flag flew above every capital ship" ... there's nothing in the article red flag that tells me what this means, although I can guess it was the flag of the mutineers. - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It was just the generic "red flag" of socialist revolutionaries. Is there not a mention of the socialist tilt of the mutineers? I thought I had included that, but then I am sometimes forgetful with these things...Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I didn't see it; I've added "of the Socialists". - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• Done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support One image is in need of alt text, otherwise this looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• 'Support: I believe that this article meets the required criteria. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support, but please fix the broken link in the main infobox. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed, and thanks for all your hard work Dank! Parsecboy (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    • My pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 16:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• I am unable to see any issues remaining to handle. I'll Support it.Cromdog (talk) 18:20, 8 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 03:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ordnance QF 25-pounder Short

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

I think that this short, but detailed, article on an important Australian variant of the British QF 25-pounder artillery gun may meet the A class criteria. Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Only a few comments from me, mainly just suggestions.
  • no dab links, ext links fine, alt text present (no action required);
  • in the lead, I suggest perhaps rewording "...during the fighting in the South West Pacific Area and was declared obsolete in 1946". I think this would work better if the words "and was" were replaced with "before being";
    • Done
  • in the Background section, could the "harsh" conditions in New Guinea be clarified a bit more?
    • I've tweaked this - is it clearer?
      • Looks good. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • there is some inconsistency in capitalisation. Malayan Campaign appears, but then New Guinea campaign (capital "C", then lower case "c" for campaign);
    • Fixed
  • in the Design section the word "thirty eight" is used, I think this should be hyphenated (not sure, though) - I understand why you've chosen to spell it in this regard as it would be a bit confusing next to the "75mm";
    • Done
  • was there a reason gun shields were not incorporated? I think I've read somewhere that it was to limit weight so they could be more easily tranported in the jungle;
    • I think that you're right, but none of the sources I found explicitly said this...
  • in the Service section, there is an inconsistency in capitalisation here: "preferred the 75 mm pack howitizer to the 25-pounder short". I think "short" here should be capitalised;
    • Fixed
  • in the Service section, 9th Division could probably be linked;
    • Done (I can't believe that I missed that!)
  • should "trade offs" be hyphenated (not sure, sorry)?;
    • I don't think so
  • the ribbon template at the bottom might look better collapsed;
    • I think that might require the template to be edited

Anyway that's it from me. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for your comments Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support A couple of observations/questions (ec with AussieRupert...sorry for any dupliction) I'm happy. -- saberwyn 00:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason behind the non=fulfilment of the US M116 howitzer order?
    • I've tweaked this to 'not immediately filled'. There's a 1944 Australian Army publication available via Google books which says that none of these guns were available, but I'm reluctant to use it as it was published during the war and was wrong about 3.7 inch howitzers also not being available.
  • "The three agencies involved in the project cooperated well and were strongly motivated to provide the Army with a useful light artillery piece as quickly as possible"...was the cooperation because of the strong motivation to build useful weapons, or was the cooperation due to other factors?
    • To get the gun into the field as quickly as possible - I've tweaked the wording
  • Forgive the water rat, but what is a trail, and how does making it lighter improve/affect the gun?
    • It's the long bit of the carriage that sticks out of the back of the gun. Unfortunately I can't find a good article or Wikidictionary term to link to...
  • Conversons of the various measurements ("75mm pack howitzers", "four foot barrel", etc) would be of benefit.
    • I've converted 'four foot', but '75mm pack howitzer' and '3.7 inch Mountain Howitzer' are the names of these guns.
  • The phrase "...a new cradle, trail and axles" comes up twice in the Design section (paras 2 and 3). Could one of them be changed or removed?
    • oops! Well spotted. I've removed the first instance
• All for now, but looking good so far. Will most likely support one these are addressed. -- saberwyn 12:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support Good work. That one hyphen that needed to be dashed was very hard work for me, not. On another note, was Maribyrnong part of teh urban sprawl or still separate in those days? Nearby Sunshine was still separate in the late 1920s YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure to be honest. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 17:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Tom Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 7 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 06:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the Cedars

Nominator(s): Magic♪piano

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it's close to, if not at, the A-Class standard. A strange, almost funny, little sequence of events with consequences of unexpected reach... Magic♪piano 15:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• References comments Support - references concerns addressed. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Interesting, the oldest source used information that the modern sources didn't use? That's not common. Should the note you have be smaller or a note? Moved to reduce prominence. If I recall, Stanley was the best modern (post-1950) account, and even he was lacking in details.
    • I wasn't questioning that, it just surprised me. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Locations are needed for the publishers. Done also added missing OCLC numbers
  • "READ BOOKS" should be "Read Books" per MOS:CAPS Done
  • What company published Forgotten Allies? Already there Macmillan!
  • Any page numbers for ref 9? Comment I could, but in some cases (e.g. Smith Vol 1) it literally is the whole book. In the others, it's probably 1/3 to 1/2 of the book. (This is why the note says "great detail".)
    • Makes sense. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Life of Joseph Brant-Thayendanegea and The History of the County of Brant, Ontario don't seem to appear in the references? Added refs needed to justify claims of Brant's presence.
• —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your sharp eyes, I shoulda caught some of these. Magic♪piano 13:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, that's what I'm here for! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• A really interesting article! A couple of minor thoughts:
  • A couple of places where there is material in brackets where I'd have brought them into the main part of the sentence - e.g. " the garrison's commander (who had gone to Montreal for reinforcements without warning the garrison of the approaching forces)", "Sherburne landed about 100 of his men (the rest, apparently suffering from the aftereffects of smallpox, were left behind) at Quinze-Chênes" - but to be fair, I'm no grammar expert! Reworded to remove need for parens.
  • "break previous Six Nations assurances of neutrality" is it "Six Nations" or "the Six Nations"? (NB: I'm no Six Nations specialist either!) Comment The title of the Iroquois confederacy is often given as the "Six Nations" (or Five, prior to the joining of the Tuscarora, I believe). I have reworded to clarify -- I think I got some commentary on this in the GA review...
  • "carrying Major Sherburne and Forster's second, Lieutenant Parke" - second as in "deputy" or "representative"? Or "second in command"? Changed to "deputy".

Hchc2009 (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to best change the parenthetical about Bedel's activities in the lead; I think it needs to be mentioned there, but not prominently in summarizing the action. Thanks for reading! Magic♪piano 15:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The note about Kingsford's book, mentioned above, is a major red flag. First, a minor point. You say: "Kingsford provides one of the most interesting accounts, apparently using sources that other historians, including recent ones, have not used." "Interesting" is an editorial judgment and should be avoided; better to simply say that he provides the most detailed account.

But the major problem is that Kingsford was an amateur historian whose work was criticized by professional historians of his day, who, according to the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, "repeatedly took him to task for failing to meet their standards of comprehensive research". Kingsford wrote just as history was emerging as a profession, with new standards of evidence. Gone were the days when gentleman historians would fill their histories with colorful anecdotes of doubtful provenance. Was Kingsford's account "the most interesting" because he used sources that modern, professional historians would regard as unreliable? I don't know, but it's an issue you should be aware of. —Kevin Myers 05:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I'm actually quite aware of Kingsford's limitations, having run into them on other occasions (he's especially problematic when he wanders too far away from Canadian history). Your comment prompted me to reexamine the assertion. The source he mentions (see footnote p. 46) is in fact referenced (usually in the French original), by others; I will modify the comment appropriately. Kingsford's account is almost ten pages long, more thorough than those of Lanctot and Stanley, as well as that of William Nester, a source I looked at but did not cite here. His primary shortcoming is that he doesn't describe the American chain of events leading to the setup of the garrison. If there are significant differences between his and the other accounts, they're relatively minor. (I do have a bias in favor of using web-accessible sources for citation, which is why I tend to cite sources like Smith and Kingsford in preference to more recent ones.) Magic♪piano 13:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. An excellent article, but would it be possible to add more pictures or diagrams, perhaps a map? There's really nothing between Wooster and Arnold to break up the text. – Joe N 01:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I should probably consider drawing up a schematic map showing the movements and key locations, since that was one of the more confusing things to figure out in this action. I'm not sure there are great photos of the any of the area available (or artwork of more of the participants). Thanks for the support! Magic♪piano 20:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, something like that would be great. It'd be a lot easier to follow that way. – Joe N 20:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Can't really comment on content, unfortunately, but here are my comments:
  • images all appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • ext links all work as advertised (no action required);
  • one dab link that needs fixing: [32];
  • In the References section, it is slightly out of alphabetical order: you have a G, followed by a J, followed by another G.
  • Citations # 8 and 30 ["Smith (1907), Vol 2, p. 372"] are the same and could be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS;
  • In the lead, I think that the opening paragraph should mention the parties to the conflict. Even though you have linked American Revolutionary War, for flow I feel it would make sense to add a clause such as "British and American forces" or something like it;
  • In the lead, American, British and Indian could possibly be linked (although not if they are linked when/if you add the clause mentioned above);
  • In the infobox, is it necessary to wikilink POW twice?
  • In the infobox, Iroquois is also linked twice;
  • Can you clarify what version of English is being used? Is it British or American. You have used the British "kilometres", but then the US "center" (see for example in the Background section). The spelling of kilometres might be due to the conversion template, but if you add "|sp=us" to it, that should fix it, I think;
  • In the Prelude section (it appears elsewhere in the article too, e.g Battle at The Cedars section), check the spelling of "Canadien" - is this correct? I think it should be "Canadian", but maybe your spelling means something different that I've missed in my ignorance? — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I think I addressed most of these. POW is twice linked because I use {{POW}} in those places, which guarantees consistent presentation. "Canadien" is one of those oddities that agenda editors like to mess with. I watch other articles where use of that term and "Canadian" are a frequent editing target. They do mean different things; I have clarified (and linked it) in the first use. Magic♪piano 21:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support on condition that the dab link be fixed. Otherwise it looks good. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 14:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • dab taken care of. Thanks! Magic♪piano 21:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns above have been addressed. Thanks. — AustralianRupert (talk) 21:58, 6 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.

---

Promoted --Ranger Steve (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... it recently passed GAR and I believe that it meets the A-class criteria. If there are infelicities in my writing please take the effort to point them out as I don't find comments to do a general copyedit particularly useful. Keep in mind that I'm aiming this at FAC afterwards.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with dab links or alt text. One external link is reported as suspicious please check and advise.
    • It's good.
  • Can we get two paragraphs in the intro please? Two (or three or more than that) helps to promote the professionalism of the article, IMO.
    • I think the best thing to do is to add some stuff about the prolonged development history and maybe expand the bit about the construction difficulties. However, I'm not sure how to add the development stuff because it all flows rather nicely now. I suppose I could add a separate paragraph after the one, but that would disrupt the chronological progression. Any suggestions?
  • The armor section does not note if the battleships were to employ the all or nothing armor scheme. Can you find anything to this effect? TomStar81 (Talk) 04:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't really think so, based on what I little I know about it, but McLaughlin didn't note it specifically.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments This article is in excellent shape, but I think that it needs a little more work to reach A class:
  • The introduction is a bit short
    • See my comments above. Do you have any concrete suggestions as to what I should do to expand it?
  • The 'Design and development' section should start with providing some context about the Soviet Navy at the time work began on planning for these ships and why it was decided to try to build such ambitious vessels
    • Done
  • The sentence "A revised design was approved on 28 February 1938 and the first ship was to be laid down on 15 July, but even this was incomplete and would be revised later." is unclear - was the ship or the design incomplete and revised? Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
    • The design was still incomplete. Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support My comments are now addressed. I think that more background on the state of the Soviet Navy and rationale for these ships should be added before it goes to a FAC through. Nick-D (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that there's really that much to tell about the decision itself. The Soviet Navy was in bad shape and had only completed 3 half-built Tsarist cruisers and several of the Project 2 escort ships since the end of the Civil War 15 years earlier. The Kirov-class cruisers were under construction, with Italian help, but most of the capital ship design and construction expertise was lost and had to be relearned on the fly. And nobody seemed to make provision for time to design and build the guns and machinery. The former often took longer than the actual design and construction of the rest of the ship. Similarly the Tsarist knowledge base for thick armor plates, large guns and precision machinery had largely fled the country. And the Communist emphasis on quotas over quality further compounded their problems. I'll have to reread McLaughlin about the actual decision to build these puppies, but it basically appears to be something like: "Hey the kid next door has some cool toys, I better get some myself" Stalin and the Navy wanted something to counter the German ships and trivial matters like a decayed industrial base thwart their desires.

• Comment:
  • the format of the References section is a little inconsistent. # 1 provides the full bibliographic details, but the others use short citation style (for consistency I'd suggest making Reference # 1 "Westwood, p. 202" and moving the full details to the Bibliography section. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
    • The first citation is the only citation for that reference. Solo citations are always given in full, only multiple citations are given in the short format with full info in the bibliography.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I believe that this article meets the criteria. I couldn't find any issues to pick fault with. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comments Support
  • Without going into a detailed review of the article just yet, I'm going to make a concrete suggestion for expanding the lead. First off, to me it's good as it stands because it gives a succinct, logical history of the class in one fell swoop, and I don't want to spoil that flow. However, I agree with Nick and Tom that more detail, in say two paras, is appropriate for A-Class. I think you could split the current para before "One ship, Sovetsky Belorussiya...", and then commence a second para going into a bit of detail on design, characteristics, and construction (maybe just a sentence apiece for those three aspects, the last perhaps mentioning at least the first ship in the class that was built) before finishing (still in the second para) with "One ship, Sovetsky Belorussiya..." and after. See how you go...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, I've adopted Ian's suggestion of splitting the lead, although I ended up going in a slightly different direction. How does it work now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm happy with the new second para, my only remaining suggestion for the lead would be (as mentioned earlier) to briefly mention construction history in the third para, at least the first ship, as a) the third para's pretty minscule and b) the bit on the cancelled ship kind of pops out of nowhere, for me at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Completed review to the end; apart from what I changed in a quick copyedit I think it reads well, is detailed and properly cited, and appropriately illustrated with a fair-use design view. So well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I moved one sentence out of the first paragraph to lead off the third paragraph since it deals with construction issues. However, I'm not sure if it works properly in conjunction with the earlier sentence on the armor plate manufacturing issues. What do y'all think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Support for ACR Comment This looks like good coverage (comprehensive) of the subject. Everything I wanted to know about soviet battleships (which wasn't a lot to start with, but now I've been instructed). I found no lapses of explanation, etc., but the prose could use a good copy edit—it's got a lot of Sturmvogelisms—before you take it to FA. I'll volunteer for that assignment, if you'd like. That would be sometime in the next 10 days. I'm trying to get finish a dissertation chapter. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sturmvogelisms?–<snicker>. My dear, are you saying that I have, ahem, a "distinctive" voice? I do believe that you're flattering me! A good copyedit would be appreciated or you can just point them out for me to fix. Either way would be fine; I just don't want to exceed the allotted time for this ACR which is in a week or so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

To be sure. I'll give it a go later, after I get some of my dissertation done, but I see nothing that should prevent ACR at this point. I'll leave some stuff on the talk page for you. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• "possibly chosen as being as large a violation as they thought they could get away with, with an armament of nine 406-millimeter": who's making that interpretation, and why? - Dank (push to talk) 22:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's McLaughlin, presumably because he doesn't know why the ship's size changed yet again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If he had some evidence or he was repeating some kind of accepted wisdom, that can be fine with the right attribution. If he's speculating, you'll be better off at FAC without that part. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted.

• "experimental basin": I'm not sure what that means. Only 1 other Wikipedia article has the phrase, and a gsearch isn't pulling up anything consistent enough for me to get a handle on it. If it's not important, we could leave it out. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I changed it ship model basin.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Great, that works.

• "splinter deck": a lot of battleship articles use that and "splinter belt" but I can't find any of them that define it. From Garzke & Dulin and Friedman, my sense is that the splinter deck was generally a much thinner deck (from roughly 0.6 to 2 inches thick) designed to protect most of the crew from shards of bombs or shells or debris from the ship. What's the best way to communicate this to the reader? Should we link to a stub on splinter deck, create an entry at Wiktionary, or give a quick description whenever we use the phrase? - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded the text to cover its function, see how it reads. At some point we're going to have to start articles on these sorts of things, but my excuse is that I'm waiting to rescue the rest of my library from storage before I start elaborating them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Trials with the motor launches": motor launches? I don't see how those would provide accurate information on the proposed ship's speed. Are we talking about a larger hull plus motors here? - Dank (push to talk) 11:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No, these were essentially motor boats with the ship's hull form. Used because the smaller models can have problems with scaling effects. The article references a specific British class of military motor boats.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• "trim" can mean "the fore-and-aft angle of the vessel to the water" (wikt:trim) and "ballast" (in Dynamic trimming, "optimize trim at all times") and something like "total drag" (first sentence of Dynamic trimming). Which of those is meant by these two occurrences of the word here? "After the weights were calculated the ship showed a substantial trim by the stern; the two 100 mm turrets mounted on the quarterdeck were deleted and the height of the armor belt abreast the rear turret was lowered in a effort to reduce the trim." - Dank (push to talk) 13:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This is another term that needs a separate article as most everything listed above applies to one degree or another. In this case the wikt definition is the one meant here as there was too much weight towards the stern. This is bad because it increases overall drag, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know what "The hull form was very full" means ... full of something? wide? - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Think full-bodied; that's probably a better term anyways.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Any synonym of "oversized" would work for me. - Dank (push to talk) 22:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Should "after end" be "aft end"? - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No, after is a preposition. Aft is an adjective.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Not quite following this: "...or with three torpedo hits and the unarmored above-water side destroyed." - Dank (push to talk) 03:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Really not sure how to rephrase this. The ship was supposed to remain afloat after suffering, case 1) the destruction of the above-water, unarmored side of the ship plus three torpedo hits, or, case 2) five adjacent compartments were flooded. Should I move around some of the clauses? --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not getting which side of the ship we're talking about, but if it's clear to other reviewers, I'm fine with the language. - Dank (push to talk) 01:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• "...the Soviet leadership preferred to ignore the industrial difficulties when making their plans." I'm not disputing that, but you don't support that broad conclusion; that would be a separate article. (You could attribute it to someone, maybe.) Maybe something like: "... appeared to ignore the difficulties encountered in the construction of the Kirov class when ordering 14 much more ambitious ships." - Dank (push to talk) 04:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Done.

• Support per my usual disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 04:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. An excellent article. It would be nice if there were more pictures, however, I understand that there are likely none available. – Joe N 22:59, 4 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 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 23:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

War of the Bavarian Succession

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...it covers a wikigap, it has been thoroughly researched and is well referenced, it's as well written as anything else I've done, etc. A fun little article on the Potato War, or the Plum Fuss, as it was called then. A War with No Battles. I read everything I could reasonably find on the subject. As usual, my "quirky" citations, using CMS and no named refs. Thanks in advance for constructive comments! Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• btw, there are no dabs, alt text is present (although not especially brilliant), and the links all work, as of now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • The War of the Bavarian Succession (1778–1779) between the Habsburg Monarchy, Saxony, Bavaria and Prussia had no battles, and a few minor skirmishes, but several thousand casualties. Ok, I'll bite: If there were no battles, no major campaigns, and only a few minor skirmishes why did/do they call this a war?
    • read on!  ;) Not my name. The locals called it the Potato War and the Plum Fuss. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • More to follow (can't work up here in odessa when dads watching tv, its impossible to focus 100% on article reviews with the Simpsons Movie playing on the tube :-)
    • that's what I always wonder. Who can concentrate on anything when the Simpsons are on?

TomStar81 (Talk) 21:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Not me. Last suggestion: I would suggest that you debold the war of bavarian succession in the legacy section since we in general do not like to have things bolded unless there is a good reason for the bolding, and in this particular case I can see no real reason for the term to be bolded in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
    • ...D'oh! It was the Long-term effects section, not the legacy section :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
      • that's done. You said "last suggestion"...but there were no others listed. ...?Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 04:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The right side of the article towards the top is very crammed. Could you try moving some of the images to the left if they fit? Otherwise the article looks good. Kyriakos (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • do you mean the four portraits? I intentionally put them there, together, so they would be in a line of "contenders". Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Kyriakos (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support: The only comment I have is to ask if "Zwetschgenrummel" should have a translation beside it in the Impact section as the only other mention comes in the lead, so the reader might have forgotten what it means. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Added. Thanks! Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Concern Sorry for expressing this again but I just can't get myself to cope with the following citation/note: "Thomas Carlyle. History of Friedrich II of Prussia called Frederick the great : in eight volumes. Vol. VIII in The works of Thomas Carlyle in thirty volumes. London: Chapman and Hall, 1896–1899, p. 193. The Florentine noble, Cosimo Alessandro Collini (1727–1806), had been Voltaire's secretary, and later accepted the patronage of Charles Theodore, and remained in the Palatine. See (German) Collini, found in (German) Jörg Kreutz: Cosimo Alessandro Collini (1727–1806). Ein europäischer Aufklärer am kurpfälzischen Hof. Mannheimer Altertumsverein von 1859 - Gesellschaft d. Freunde Mannheims u. d. ehemaligen Kurpfalz; Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen Mannheim; Stadtarchiv — Institut f. Stadtgeschichte Mannheim (Hrsg.). Mannheimer historische Schriften Bd. 3, Verlag Regionalkultur, 2009, ISBN 978-3-89735-597-2. The information that "The Florentine noble, Cosimo Alessandro Collini (1727–1806), had been Voltaire's secretary, and later accepted the patronage of Charles Theodore, and remained in the Palatine." is so hidden that it adds little value. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

the quote is from the first source. I didn't know who Collini was, so I hunted down the other information, which is listed in the second source. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I understand that. I'm not that dumb. :-) The point is that the info is hidden in all that text. Secondly, nobody reading the article would click on the citation, expecting to find some more or controversial information. The footnotes (extra information) and citation look the same. And even if one did have a look at the citation section, only by pure chance would someone stumble over the information hidden between two citations. I just happen to feel that this could improve if you would separate the footnotes from the citations. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've taken it out of the citation and put it in the text. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not against your style of citations in general (full cite then followed up by short citations). I guess there are many legitimate ways of doing this. I want to understand why mixing of footnotes (which to me are not pure citations because they carry additional (additional to the reference itself) information) and citations, meaning a reference to the source only, cannot be separated? I just don't get it why you give me the strong impression that they just cannot be separated. Maybe you have a good reason for this but I just haven't understood it yet. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

When you read a book (at least books from US publishers) with footnotes, the footnotes include citations and explanatory notes. That's why they are called "footnotes"...notes in the footer. I don't see the point of separating them at all. Why would there be two sections when one will do? On the other hand, I read footnotes, citations and explanatory notes, before I read the book usually. I certainly read them before I read an article, to figure out what sources are used. So to have incomplete citations is frustrating. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support We agree to disagree, but nicely done article nevertheless MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:37, 2 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 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 23:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Allan Walters

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Nominating this article for A-Class review because... now that Eurocopter's very enjoyable WWI contest is over, it's time to get back to some WWII and Cold War subjects! A highly regarded operational commander in the Pacific War, Walters also just missed out (twice!) on getting the RAAF's top job of Chief of the Air Staff. Any and all comments welcome... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support This is a great article which easily meets the criteria. My only comment is that the sentence combining Walters' interest in horse racing with his death seems a bit odd unless there was a link between the two things. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Tks Nick - you never know...! No, you're right, and I've modifed it. It's true, I sometimes join disparate thoughts and am probably overly fond of commas. Possibly stems from reading the bible too much as a young'un (my wife, who calls herself "cautiously Catholic", likes to describe me as the most biblically-literate athiest she knows)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support No problems reported with dab links, external links, or alt text. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Tks for reviewing, Tom! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:45, 21 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.

---

Promoted by The ed17 [33]

Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602–628

Nominator(s): DemonicInfluence (talk)

• Previous ACR: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602–628/archive1

I wish to renominate Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602–628 for A-class. It has recently passed the GA-class review and I hope that it can also pass the A-class review this time. DemonicInfluence (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problem reported with dab links or external links. One image reported as being in need of alt text, please add this to the image forthwith.
    • I have added alt text for this
  • Any particular reason why the bibliography section is in three parts? TomStar81 (Talk) 04:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Not really. The GA reviewer changed it to this and I didn't really mind the change. I also wouldn't care too much if it had to be changed again. DemonicInfluence (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Well written, well researched, well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks a bunch. DemonicInfluence (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments This article is in great shape, but I think that it needs a little bit more work to reach A class. My suggestions are:
  • Some material is unreferenced
    • Could you point out where this material is?
      • Tagged
        • Added a source for this
  • The 'Background' section seems too short (especially for people like me who don't know much about this topic), and only covers the Byzantines.
    • I tried to improve this a bit, but I'm not too sure what else need to be put here. Any advice?
      • Looks OK now
  • The photos of coins don't seem directly relevant to the topic of this article. Reproductions of artworks showing what soldiers of the era looked like would work well if they're available.
    • I agree with you that they aren't too relevant, but there aren't that many images from this era to begin with :(
  • The single paragraph sub-sections in the 'Persian dominance' section could be merged into one section
    • My GA reviewer decided to change that into 3 single paragraph sub-sections. It doesn't seem like it's a very big issue though
  • I doubt that a "Countless" number of churches were burned in Jerusalem - I think that you mean "many" as it should have been possible to count the number, even allowing for the poor quality of education at the time ;)
    • Haahhaah changed.
  • Why Heraclius 'lived too long' needs to be explained
    • I added a little part here.
  • Both the 'see also' links appear to be in article's prose, so this section isn't needed. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • It was added by some other editor. Do you really feel like it is unnecessary? DemonicInfluence (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes - the two links are already highlighted in the 'Long-term consequences' section. Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
        • deleted
• Support All comments now addressed - this really is a great article Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks :) DemonicInfluence (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

support I'll support this for ACR but it needs additional copy editing before it goes to FA. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks :) I've been really busy and unfortunately unable to do such editing at the moment. I'll see what I can do when I'm no longer quite as busy.DemonicInfluence (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Overall this article is very interesting, well researched, and well assembled. I have some prose issues that I'd like to address, and I'll list them on the article talk page. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

my issues with the article are these:

• ambiguous prose. For example, in the lead, ...led to the demise of the Persians. I don't think this was a genocide, was it? The Persians didn't die, they simply lost the war. And another one. Etc. There are multiple instances of this kind of ambiguity.

• I tried skimming through and found some of these that I hopefully corrected

• Organization. It would help if there were some overall structure to presenting the war. I've suggested talking about it as a war in phases, in this case 4, and that would allow the use of some dates, characteristics of the phases, etc. I think most of the english wiki readers are not going to be that familiar with the subject. It's interesting and well-researched, so I'd say its accessibility needs to go up a notch.

• I divided up the lead in that fashion. However, I feel like the current table of contents divides the war nicely already. Or is it too many small parts without enough cohesion into the big picture?

• clarity. This isn't quite the same as ambiguous prose, although related. For example: Heraclius proclaimed himself and his son of the same name as consuls—thereby implicitly claiming the imperial title—and minted coins with the two wearing the consular robes. The main rebel force was employed in a naval invasion of Constantinople, led by younger Heraclius, who was to be the new emperor. Was Dad preparing to retire? Do you mean next emperor? Was the declaration of himself and his son as consuls the implicit claiming of the title, or the minting of coins the implicit claiming? By naming himself and his son as consuls, was he implicitly claiming the imperial title? Don't they have to be crowned or elected or some such thing? Was it the minting of coins, with both himself and his son on the coins, the implicit claim?

• To be honest, the part that you highlighted is ambiguous in the historical sources. Apparently, Dad just disappears and that it was clear that the naval invasion was to make the son Emperor. I'm also a bit confused about Dad.
• I meant to say that them claiming to be consuls meant that they were claiming to the imperial title, and I thought this was clear because I had placed it in that order. Is it noticeably unclear? I think the historical thing was that the Byzantine Emperors had always claimed to be consuls. Should I add that?

really neat touches

• I like that you've included the coins, too. Neat touch. There are a lot of illustrations of this war by Renaissance and early modern historical artists. That would work too, and adding a short section on the Byz.Sassanid War of 602-628 as a subject of Renaissance interest in the classics....? Or linking to the current article, if there is one. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• To be honest, I don't know much about art, though I too noticed that it was used a bit in the Renaissance. So, I'm not sure if I'm qualified to make an article on this. DemonicInfluence (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• An almost exact mirror of Ruth's comments (including the positive), please see details at article talk page. Note that I am pitching at FA criterion 1a quality. I am ambivalent about whether the current text meets A class requirements.
• Byzantine POV is detectable, probably due to source availability: please address this.
  • I'll add this when I get my hand on sources, but I believe the main reason is that the Persian archives got destroyed.
  • Added a section on the Historiography.
• Please note in the text where the historical record is unclear, otherwise ambiguity can appear to be a failing in the article, as opposed to the sources.
  • I have added some of these comments
• The maps need work and I will attempt to help in this regard, although it will render me ineligible to vote.

• Thanks :)

• A nice (I hope) surprise awaits you on the article talk page :) Dhatfield (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Information on Persian and Byzantine force composition is notably lacking. Dhatfield (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll try to find more about this. DemonicInfluence (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• References comments —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Beckwith needs a location and publisher.
    • Added
  • All but Ostrogorsky need locations.
    • Added a bunch, but had trouble finding the location of a bunch of the publishing things. Especially Oman.
  • Doesn't ref 129 need a link to the bibliography?
    • Fixed
  • Oman is reliable, but is there anything more modern that draws on his work and more modern studies? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I have a bunch of modern sources in this article with the modern scholarship that goes with it. Oman is mostly there so that anyone can check out this source which is conveniently available free online.
    • Thanks for the review :)DemonicInfluence (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, I'm mainly worried that the first six citations are to him, that's all. Re locations, try http://www.worldcat.org ; it's a beautiful site. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Added all of them with the help of worldcat.org. Also, added some more modern stuff to the beginning.DemonicInfluence (talk)
          • You're still missing a lot of publishing locations, but that isn't a big issue for ACR. At FAC, however, you will need them. Worldcat should have all of them. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support.

• "Campaigns continued in the Balkans though." This confuses me. You previously discussed how they made peace after the Byzantines helped the Sassanids, so why were there still campaigns? Also, it's gramatically awkward.

• • Fixed

• Much clearer now.

• "the eunuch Leontius (general under Phocas) to deal with Narses," You should hide the disambiguator with a pipe, and can't it just be (General) in the redlink anyways?

• • Someone else, Constantine, made it that name, so I left it there

• "Some like John Julius Norwich claim that Bonus tried to forcibly convert the Jews, even those who in the front lines, making Phocas a great enemy of the Jews." Erm...Are you missing a word?

• • Fixed

• I've added in "were"

• In the Capture of Jerusalem section you use the phrase "local elites" many times in close proximity, please change or remove one of the mentions.

Fixed

• "Shahin claimed that he was unable to make peace." Why would he be "unable" to make peace? Please explain.

Explained

I'll finish going through the article and likely add some more in the next couple of days.

• • Thanks, I hope to have more time to work on this article in the next few days too. :) DemonicInfluence (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made many minor changes to improve readability and flow; it looks good now. – Joe N 19:12, 25 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 01:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

USS Triton (SSRN-586)

Nominator(s): Marcd30319 (talk)

I have nominated this article for A-Class review because it has been certified as a GA article since 2006, and I have spent a great deal of time augmenting this value. Also, since Triton executed the first submerged circumnavigation of the world in 1960, some 50 years ago this year, I believe recognition of the subject of this arrticle to be both timely and appropriate.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Two dab links and one redirect are present in the article, these need to be located and if at all possible removed from the article. A disturbing number of websites are highlighted for issues related to access, these need to be located and fixed, removed, or acceptably substituted. In addition, a number of the websites listed do not appear to be reliable sources (blogspot for example), these links and there accompanying information may need to be removed from the article. Approximately 35 images are listed as being in need of alt text, please add this text to the images forthwith.
    • External links: See lebow.
      • Need help. I cannot fix footnotes 107, 108, 109.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Disambiguation: Does this refer to Main article: Operation Sandblast link in the Shakedown cruise section and the See also: Triton Light link in the Triton memorials section?Marcd30319 (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Corrected: nuclear deterrence in Design history section & Hanford Site in Triton memorials section.Marcd30319 (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Redirect: I cannot locate any such redirects.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Redirect gone: Redirect in Operation Sandblast and has been eliminated.Marcd30319 (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
    • alt text: I believe that this is addressed below (see my response dated 02:17, 6 March 2010)Marcd30319 (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Done, except for the gallery for Ship's crest, ship's insignia, ship's bell, and radio callsign. I cannot get alt text to work properly for these images.Marcd30319 (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Shorten your introduction please, everything in the introduction is going to be brought up in the article body in greater detail, hence we do not need it all up front. My recommendation is to cut out all the extended information on the circumnavigation from the article intro save for one or two lines, and I'd recommend removing the quote from the intro as well.
  • I was under the impression that COMSUBLANT had no flagship, can you cite this information please?
    • From Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships: "On 13 April 1964, Triton became the flagship for the Submarine Force, Atlantic Fleet, and served in that role until relieved by Ray (SSN-653) on 1 June 1967."Marcd30319 (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • There seems to be enough information in the design section to split out into a class article, given that the article is currently 136 kbs doing this may help the article stay WP:SIZE compliant by removing information more relevant to the class out from a page discussing the sub alone. Just something to think about.
    • Hold up Tom, this was an individual ship; I thought we didn't use them? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm looking at the 136-kb page size as possible grounds for an IAR on this article, although like all things on the wiki I'm playing this by ear and as the article gets edited this point may become null and void. If the Operation Sandblast material is moved to its own article then this will definitely be struck, otherwise I'll update this comment and the others as they are addressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Comment struck, Operation Sandblast has reduced the size to a more manageable level. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • There are too many quotes in the article, can some of these be trimmed? Also, as a rule, articles shouldn't have galleries for their images if a link to the commons repository is provided, please see about trimming some images from the article please.
    • Quotes: Many of the quotes have been transferred to the Operation Sandblast article. There are now one (Aution) quote in the Commissioning section, three (DANFS, Beach, Dibner) in the Shakedown cruise section , and one (Rickover) in the Legacy section, four quotes, plus two citation for Triton's PUC and NUC. I think this is a reasonable total.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Galleries: I am open to discussion, but would it not be preferable to show the items being described by the text? Please advise.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Also, the alt= has screwed up the caption for the gallery.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Removed with deletion of Ship's crest, insignia, bell, and radio callsign section
  • There seem to be little bits of unneeded trivia all over the article, could you see about trimming these out of the article? For example, in the keel laying section, you've got "Although this underwater towing capability was never used, it later became a key plot element in Beach's 1978 novel Cold is the Sea." I fail to see why we need to know this, its trivia and could be removed without compromising the article's integrity.
    • I moved the Cold is the Sea text to the Cultural references section while adding a note about Consideration of under-the-ice operation by Triton per Largess and Horwitz.Marcd30319 (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The entire Ship's Crest, Ship's Insignia, Ship's Bell, and Radio Call Sign section needs to be moved from its current position, its obstructing the flow of the article. Put it at the top of the article in the design section or at the bottom of the page around the legacy section. Alternatively, you may consider simply deleting it.
  • On a similar note, you have way to many sections header with very short section. Section headers are meant to announce big things, not the start of every new paragraph. Eliminate some the extra headers please.
    • Done. Excellent point.Marcd30319 (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • You need non breaking spaces between all number-size figures, but I notice that there are spots where this is missing.
    • Non-breaking space: Are you referring to the article's Infobox? Please clarify.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • There are too many instances of bulleted lists, please trim these down.
    • Done. Excellent point.Marcd30319 (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Practically all the information int he circumnavigation section could be reduced to a few paragraphs with the bulk of the information going to create an Operation Sandblast article. This event seems to be a consuming moment for the ship, but IMO it takes away from later operations. We adopted this format for USS Missouri; she got a paragraph for the surrender ceremony in her actual article while an entirely different article discusses the surrender ceremony in greater detail since it was such a highlight of Might Mo's career.
    • Moved circumnavigation to Operation Sandblast, and clarified the results.Marcd30319 (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • What's with the smoking study? I find this part of the article unneeded, and would consider trimming it back or removing it altogether.
    • Moved circumnavigation to Operation Sandblast, and clarified the results.Marcd30319 (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Specify the year of the U2 incident in the aftermath section please, there were a few incidents and the addition of the year in the link would do much to help people remember which on you are talking about.
    • Moved circumnavigation to Operation Sandblast, and 1960 dating added.Marcd30319 (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I recommend removing the commanding officers section and integrating that information into the article body.
    • Incorporated into Subsequent operations section and done.Marcd30319 (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I recommend deleting the awards and honors section and noting the PUC and NUC in the appropriate areas of the article body.
    • In-text PUC and NUC citation moved to Operation Sandblast. Recommend retention.Marcd30319 (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • To the best of your ability, remove the See Also section at the bottom of the page, anything worth noting there should be incorporated into the article text.
    • Done. Moved U.S. Navy wiki-portal to External links section.Marcd30319 (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Trim the external links section, per WP:NOT we are not a link farm to other websites. Keep those links that have merit, remove the rest from the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Done. Removed Google Map link of ship since it is undergoing recycling.Marcd30319 (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment This article needs a lot of work to reach A-class and Tom has covered the major issues that exist. I would suggest withdrawing the nomination and going to peer review instead. --Brad (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Consider my nomination withdrawn, and no need for peer review. Not when anyone can go in, change or delete anything they wanr, and not allow the person who has contributed more on a particular article than anyone else the opportunity to discuss or respond. Who care about something like a 50th anniversary around here?Marcd30319 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Added strikethrough per my talk —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Trekphiler is trying to help; not destroy. Was this your first A-class nomination? --Brad (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It was. The editor is apparent upset over the SOP for a mainpage appearance, and did not appear to be happy with the idea that other people would edit the article, which has also prompted ownership issues. At this point we haven't heard back from his, but I am loath to close the ACR because the article stands a realistic shot of making it to A and FA-class if the editor is just willing to listen and trim. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Shit, I don't like seeing this, I liked Marc. Has anyone sent him an email? If not, please don't; I'll send him one tomorrow. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Support A well written, well illustrated, very comprehensive and well researched article. Due to the somewhat unusual circumstances, I made some typo-fix copyedits while reading through. I sincerely hope Marc can be encouraged to continue collaborating with us as he learns the arcana. Dhatfield (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I just reread your comments and while I agree that this article is somewhat 'unconventional' to the eye of an experienced editor - especially one with your level of nautical experience - I think that this is good enough for A and the remaining issues are appropriate for FA. Dhatfield (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Support

• Conversions are needed for displacement and horsepower in the infobox.
  • Done - Conversions are needed for displacement and horsepower in the infobox.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• What's a fairwater housing?
  • fairwater housing — According to FreeDictionary.com, as a nautical term, fairwater refer to the bridge and conning tower on a submarine. Also, according to FreeDictionary.com, as a nautical term, housing iis part of a mast that is below deck, or housing part of a bowsprit that is inside the hull. Therefore, the fairwater housing is where the AN/SPS-26 radar is stowed in Triton's sail structure.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• No need for a separate heightfinder radar is mentioned twice.
  • Triton is the only U.S. Navy radar picket submarine to not need a separate height-finding system because the AN/SPS-26 radar combines this function with a search radar capability in a single unit. This fact was noted in the Design history section and the Combat systems overview section, and this seemed appropriate.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC) In the case of Design history section , mention of the height-finder was appropriate since previous radar pciler submarines had them, and Triton did not because of the AN/SPS-26 radar combined both function into a single unit. Now, in the case of the Combat systems overview section, there was mention of elevation as it pertains to the operation of the AN/SPS-26 radar , and it would be appropriate to mention that Triton's AN/SPS-26 radar didn't need a separate height-finder and therefore, its mention was appropriate and consistent.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Recycling should changed to scrapping.

Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• • @last point, it's called "recycling" by the navy, see Ship-Submarine Recycling Program —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • fairwater housing — According to FreeDictionary.com, as a nautical term, fairwater refer to the bridge and conning tower on a submarine. Also, according to FreeDictionary.com, as a nautical term, housing iis part of a mast that is below deck, or housing part of a bowsprit that is inside the hull. Therefore, the fairwater housing is where the AN/SPS-26 radar is stowed in Triton's sail structure.----
  • Triton is the only U.S. Navy radar picket submarine to not need a separate height-finding system because the AN/SPS-26 radar combines this function with a search radar capability in a single unit. This fact was noted in the Design history section and the Combat systems overview section, and this seemed appropriate.----

Changing to Support enough issues have been addressed for A-class level and Marc has shown a great effort to bring the article inline. I strongly recommend a peer review before this goes to FAC. There should be a sufficient amount of time for peer review and FAC before the main page appearance date. --Brad (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose We'll start with the references, What makes the following reliable sources?

• http://www.ussvi-tri-statebase.org/decklogs/DL030709Web.doc
  • See my comments regarding the Submarine Hall of Fame below.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• http://www.coldwar.org/museum/doomsday_ships.asp
  • The article in question is a well-sourced article on the NECPA by Karl C. Priest. The Cold War Museum is affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution. Also, U.S. Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History by Noramn Friedman provides information on the NECPA program,Marcd30319 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• http://www.yesterland.com/submarine.html
  • Problematic.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    • A second look at this source shows it's being used for a more or less trivial point in the article. It should suffice. --Brad (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• http://www.dcmemorials.com/index_indiv0003244.htm
  • Included because it provided photographs, including the dedication plaque about the water samples from Triton's submerged circumnavigation. This fact is well sourced from other references.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Apparently you removed this link. --Brad (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• http://www.spinax.com/Newsletter/Newsletter%2051/Albacore.htm
  • Submarine Hall of Fame: This link and the above link provided information on the Submarine Hall of Fame whose existance is conformed by the U.S. Navy Daily News Updates regarding the induction of the USS Albacore (AGSS-569) on June 1, 2005 and the induction of the USS Skate (SSN-578) on June 1, 2006.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Done - Conversions are needed for displacement and horsepower in the infobox.Marcd30319 (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sections

Misc

• There are problems with uniformity in the article. Beach is referred to in several different manners: "Beach; "Ned Beach" "Captain Beach" etc. You need to find one and stay with it.
  • Ned Beach was not my copy, but another's. My rule of thumb is for each section, the first reference is Captain Edwrad L. Beach, and thereafter it is Captain Beach. If there are two reference in close proximity to each other, then the first reference if Captain Beach and the second is just Beach.
• Other US Navy ships don't really need their full article title mentioned. Their names are sufficient enough as in this change. But again there is no uniformity in the article; I've seen all sort of versions used.
  • I added Command ship denote the ship type for the Northampton and Wright. The inclusion of the full article title for naval vessels was based upon the editorial commentary regarding Operation Strikeback that I had developed.
• Overlinking is rampant. I saw for example, New London Connecticut linked twice in the same paragraph. --Brad (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Overlinking - Abatement program initiated. If there are any additional excess, please identify.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues resolved Brad101 (Talk)

Sources

• http://donshelton.net/present.htm
  • Dead link. Will remove.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• http://www.vikingassociation.com/squadrons-and-wings.php#vs27
  • This web site is problematic until I can get verification for other sources so I am deleting this information regarding the 1966 ASW exercise from this article.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• http://www.dan-online.de/atomschiffe/zoom.aspx?bild=images/ANTI1034.jpg
  • Dead link regardin Antigua and Barbuda commemorative stamp. Will remove.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• http://web.meganet.net/kman/wjpg3.htm
  • Information based on contemporaneous newletter NSGA Bremerhaven Windjammer which includes information about Triton's port vist to Bremerhaven in late 1960. Please note that this port visit is well sourced.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    • What this cite needed as a better representation of the source. Essentially you have a published journal online. I improved the citation. --Brad (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• http://garrygray.tripod.com/ships_history.htm
  • This is the unofficial USS Triton web site. The webmaster is Mr. Garry Gray, and most of the text copy was reviwed by the late Captain Tom B. Thamm, who served as the Triton's auxilary system officer during the circumnavigation and designed of the Triton plaque. In a related project, Captain Edward L. Beach recommended Tom as a technical consultant and having worked with him, I can attest that he is a very exacting, precise, and accurate individual with zero tolerance for BS. He would feel quite at home in this WikiProject. Therefore, as it pertains the Triton and his historical and technical background, I am quite confident that this web site is highly reliable. In regards to this article, this website provided facsimiles of Triton's Preidential Unit Citation and Naval Unit Citation, as well as information regarding Triton's ship's crest, the Triton Plaque, and the Antigua and Barbuda commemorative stamp, ahd the ship's history.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    • This source will be a serious issue at FAC. The fact that you're aware of how the site is put together is irrelevant to how the site presents itself. There is nothing on the site that gives sources or how it may have been reviewed by technical experts. Right now the site appears as someones personal little webpage. --Brad (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sections

• The references section is too deeply nested, difficult to follow and overlinked. See WP:OVERLINK. --Brad (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that it is difficult to follow, but I can't think of a solution. A lot of these references are used only once and therefore can't/shouldn't be moved to the bibliography. I don't see the overlinking you see; there aren't a lot of wikilinks in there... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
    • My rule for bibliography has been to only include sources there that have been cited repeatedly. Sources only used once belong in the single citation. The Eisenhower library sources need the citation template for uniformity along with the rest. One bibliography section should suffice without the need to point out where they came from or whether they were secondary etc. --Brad (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Done — Bibliography section consolidated and a number of reference works reduced to multiple cited sources in article footnotes.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
        • I did some further clean up in that section but don't understand why the Largess-Horowitz source is underneath the Gardiner source. --Brad (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
          • The Largess-Horowitz article was published in Warship 1993. If there is a better way to do this, please let me know.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
            • Was the Largess-Horowitz article published in a chapter or appendix of the Gardiner book? --Brad (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
              • The Largess-Horowitz article was a chapter in this annual publication editted by Gardiner and published by the Naval Institute. See Warship magazine and annual on-line index. Marcd30319 (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
                • {{cite book}} has all sort of flexibility for cases such as that one; I corrected it. --Brad (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources

• Many links to youtube
  • Reduced to two Universal newsreels depicting the launch of Triton and Operation Sandblast.Marcd30319 (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
    • The question is what makes a youtube video a reliable source? --Brad (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
      • When it hosts the contemporaneous Universal newsreel of the 1958 launching of the USS Triton, the subject of this Wikipedia article, and the conclusion of Operation Sandblast, the signature operational accomplishment of this warship that transpired in 1060. Seems QED to me.Marcd30319 (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Okay. Youtube links have been moved to External links section.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Photos

• Need alt text: See WP:ALT
  • Done.Marcd30319 (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• See MOS:IMAGES for proper layout.
  • Done —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Citations

• Instead of pp. 90 - 93 you need endash (on keyboard hold alt and enter 0150, release alt) this gives you pp. 90–93
  • Done.Marcd30319 (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Not done. See this difference for endash. --Brad (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
      • That keyboard hold alt and enter 0150, release alt thing didn't exactly work as advertise, so I went to the Dash article, clicked into edit, and captured this: en dash (–). I then manually pasted the en dash (–) into every foot-note that had multiple page citations.Marcd30319 (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Hey, randomly found this page while patrolling recent changes. You can insert the endash easily, without the alt-thing. Under the save button, there should be a box, that says: Insert, followed by a bunch of random characters that are blue. The first one is an en-dash. Hope that helps! Brambleclawx 20:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
          • You can also type – (& ndash; without a space) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Citations need to be closed with a period: pp. 90–93.
  • Done.Marcd30319 (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

comments I just read the article and left some comments, which I managed to erase while saving. Not sure how I did that. Anyway, (1) the short of it is, the lead definitely needs another copy edit for comma faults, etc. (2) There are a lot of confusing sentences such as the one that starts the paragraph with Triton was the only non-Soviet submarine designed with a two-reactor propulsion plant The fact that this sentence alone has four cites made me raise my eyebrows. Does this mean that four different sources said the same thing, or that the information contained in the sentence was compiled from four different sources. (3) There are also a lot of convoluted verb constructions. Examples (not to be considered a limited list): Triton began her sea trial on 27 September 1959, which would transpire over the next five days Sentence beginning: Triton passed her preliminary acceptance trials (also a one sentence paragraph); Because new fuel elements had been procured and were available for installation, Triton's overhaul may have been cancelled in order to pay for repairs to the supercarrier USS Forrestal (CVA-59) which had suffered extensive damage from a massive shipboard fire while engaged in air combat operations in the Gulf of Tonkin during the Vietnam War in July 1967.[89] Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• (1) Reworded.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• (2) two-reactor propulsion plant: The four cites involved all of the imformation contained in that sentence regarding the SAR program, the prototypes, GE, AEC, and the Navy. Hope this clarifies.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• (3) Let's see...
  • Triton began her sea trial... Fixed and clarified.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Triton passed her preliminary acceptance trials Fixed and clarified.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • convoluted verb constructions De-convoluted.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

60th anniversary of circumnavigation If you want to try to get this featured, you might want to bring it up with the FA guru and/or delegates ahead of time. (btw 2010 minus 1950 = 60 years, doesn't it?) Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for the heads-up. BTW - The circumnavigation took place in 1960. Nuclear subamrine did bot become exist until the USS Nautilus (SSN-571) became operational in 1955.Marcd30319 (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Support for A-class. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Qualified Support, pending resolution of the citation needed comment toward the end (cultural references), and the resolution of the above issues. I made some minor prose fixes. Hope that is okay. One was actually rather major...incomplete sentence. The section on the park should probably be brought up to date. Ssomeone who knows ships and is a really good copy editor should go through this once more. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The way forward

I am not sure if this is procedurally correct, but in order to move forward the process of this A-List Review for the USS Triton article, I am going break this down into a more structured, finely focused approach.

Toolbox issues

• External Links: I need assistance regarding the uncategorized redirects (footnotes 109, 110, 111).Marcd30319 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see what the problem is. Look fine to me. --Brad (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Disambig Links: I corrected nuclear deterrence in Design history section & Hanford Site in Triton memorials section.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Redirects: This link was moved to Operation Sandblast and has been removed.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• alt text: This has been done, except dor the images associated with Ship’s crest, insignia, bell and radio callsign section. See below.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Non-breaking: I have not been provided any insight on what this issue is or how to rectify this.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I fixed some of the dashes that I could find, and ran a script which does some of it for us. Someone with the full script needs to go through and take care of the others. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Self-published sources

• Unofficial USS Triton web site: Given the reaction, I am eliminating all references from this web site except for its inclusion in External Links.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Military awards and honors section - Deleted per above.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Ship's crest, insignia, bell, and radio callsign section - Deleted section, except for call sign info is cited in the Infobox and the ship's bell is in the Commissioning section.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Triton Medal section: Deleted. This really hurts!Marcd30319 (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Submarine Hall of Fame: This does exist as noted by Department of Navy on-line coverage for the induction of USS Albacore (AGSS-569) on June 1, 2005 and the induction of USS Skate (SSN-578) on June 1, 2006, so the question is the legitimacy USSVI chapter newsletter and online article as a source for this article.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Disneyland Submarine Ride: Information on this is from [Yesterland] and DisneySubmarines.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Cold War Museum: The article in question is a well-sourced article on the NECPA by Karl C. Priest. The Cold War Museum is affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution. Also, U.S. Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman provides information on the NECPA program.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Viking Association: I removed the information on the 1966 ASW exercise.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Triton Light: DC Memorials was included because it provided photographs, including the dedication plaque about the water samples from Triton's submerged circumnavigation. This fact is well sourced from other references.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see any other references? :/ —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • ADDED: Rowlett, Russ, Lighthouse Directory, Lighthouses of Maryland, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Triton Stamp: Dan-online.de is a dead link and has been removed.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • All text references to the Triton stamp as been eliminated.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Don Shelton: This is dead link and has been removed.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Content

• Conversions: I have done the conversion for displacement and horsepower in the infobox.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Overlinking: I will review the copy and de-links as needed.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I had done some cleaning in the cultural references section but apparently you inserted a reworked version. But here is an example of overlinking:

• • Two submarine films of the period, Irwin Allen's 1961 film Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea and Ivan Tors' 1966 film Around the World Under the Sea, dramatized globe-circling submerged voyages similar to Operation Sandblast.

• • It's just a sea of blue with links to articles that have little to assist the reader about Triton and is unnecessarily verbose in the links. A cleaner version would look like:

• • Two films of the period, Irwin Allen's 1961 film Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea and Ivan Tors' 1966 film Around the World Under the Sea, dramatized globe-circling submerged voyages similar to Operation Sandblast.

• • Note that it is unnecessary to use [[Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea|''Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea'']] to italicize when ''[[Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea]]'' does the same thing. It's sort of like bloatware in its current condition. The name of the film directors are irrelevant as is [[1961 in film|1961 film]] and [[1966 in film|1966 film]]. The overall article is a lot better now, however. --Brad (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Bibliography section: Done, except for question about the Largess-Horowitz article which I have addressed.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Uniformity regarding the referencing Captain Edward L. Beach: for each section, the first reference is Captain Edwrad L. Beach, and thereafter it is Captain Beach. If there are two reference in close proximity to each other, then the first reference if Captain Beach and the second is just Beach. And no Ned Beach.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Complex sentence structure: I tend to write in compound sentence, but I will endeavor to simply where feasible.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Other Issues

I am sure that there will be other issues that I have either overlooked or will arise going forward. Please feel free to start a new thread/section as needed. Thank you all for you help and support.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I am striking the issues I pointed out above as I have time to get around to them. Largess-Horowitz was fixed with better utilization of the template. You're doing an excellent job cleaning the article up and I'll soon support for A-class. --Brad (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please ensure that the cultural references section complies with WP:MILPOP. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see a problem with the section. The books have somewhat trivial references to Triton, but there aren't a lot of references to the sub; I'm not sure if it violates the letter of the law, but it is definitely not going against its spirit. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Galleries: Removed with deletion of Ship's crest, insignia, bell, and radio callsign section (see also above).

• Support: I think that the article is of sufficient quality to be listed as A-class. Any concerns I had have been stated above, and the vast majority have been addressed; I'm certain the rest will be done in a reasonable timeframe. -- saberwyn 10:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

End game:
Hello! Please list below any remaining issues regarding the article's A-List review that needs to be resolved, addressed or captured so we can put the proverbial fork in and declare these proceedings done. Allow me in advane to thank you all for your attention on this matter. Marcd30319 (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Now this is an A-class article! Outstanding effort, Marc, outstanding!!!! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:33, 19 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 03:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael P. Murphy

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because since passing its GA review it has some data added to it and I believe it meets the criteria. Kumioko (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with dab links. Five external links are reported as suspicious, including three of which are reported dead, please check and advise on the status of the links, and if necessary locate acceptable substitutes for the dead links or remove the information. Additionally, a number of images are missing alt text, please add this to the article's pictures forthwith.
    • Dead Links deleted - None of the dead links were used as references in the article so I removed them. --Kumioko (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Alt text done I had some trouble with the alt text for the ribbons but I think I got it. Some were rather difficult to describe which brings another point. I think we should establish some standard logic for these ribbons, et least the common ones so we don't end up with 50 ways to describe a purple heart. --Kumioko (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "He was the first person to be awarded the medal for actions in Afghanistan; and the first member of the U.S. Navy to receive the award since the Vietnam War." This is false information: both Gary Gordon and Randy Shughart received Medals of Honor during the failed Operation Gothic Serpent. Gary and Randy - both Delta Force snipers - volunteered to be inserted to guard a black hawk shot down by Somali forces during the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu.
    • Comment - Gary and Randy were both in theh Army and the battle of Mogadishu is not considered to be a part of the afghanistan war so this is true. --Kumioko (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
      • D'oh! Should do my reviewing before 3:30 AM to help avoid this, couldn't be help last night. Good Call. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Did he double major at Penn state? The article doesn't say, but I would like to know.
    • None of the references state why, but this is fairly common in the US. I will try and find out but when the book comes out aith his Biography in the next few months I will be adding more data to the article from that. --Kumioko (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Why the bold letter in the combat in afganistan section? Unless you have a really good reason for the bolding, I would suggest removing the bold or using italics instead.
    • Done --Kumioko (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Lose the photo gallery, if commons has a page for the pictures, then they do not need to be in the article in a gallery section. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support I'm happy. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • • Done --Kumioko (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comments:
  • In the See also section, the Find a Grave should be removed. It is actually an External link and see also would normally be for internal links, however, as you have direct referenced it (Citation # 10 in Notes), it probably should not be listed in either See also or External links;
    • Done --Kumioko (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • as mentioned above, I suggest not bolding OEF and GWOT, suggest using "OEF" and "GWOT", or putting them in brackets;
    • Done --Kumioko (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • some of the sources listed in the References section don't seem to have been directly cited, should they be included in this section as such?
    • Done I added them to a Further reading section --Kumioko (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • the citation style seems a little inconsistent, for instance # 3 has the page number last but # 4 has page number first;
    • DoneI found a few that were different and I fixed them --Kumioko (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Operation Red Wing section (two instances here), I think "sixteen" should be "16" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers as figures or words;
    • Done --Kumioko (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Operation Red Wing section you have used an informal "didn't", I suggest not using a contraction and replacing it with "did not";
    • Done --Kumioko (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Operation Red Wing seciton you have "SEAL's" (as in "SEAL's were killed in the fighting", I don't think this is grammatically correct. I think it should be "SEALs" without the apostrophe);
    • Done--Kumioko (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • the References section seems a bit spaced out, I'd suggest removing the spaces in between each entry. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Done --Kumioko (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my comments have been addressed. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support with a couple of caveats:
  • I made some minor tweaks to the "Combat in Afghanistan" section. The abbreviations "OEF" and "GWOT" don't really need to be given because they aren't used in the rest of the article.
    • Thanks --Kumioko (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The youtube external link may need to be double-checked for copyright status - it's often problematic on that site and I don't think we'd normally link to it.
    • Done I removed it. It didn't add a lot of value anyway and there was nothing to say decisively if ot was or was not a copywritten item. --Kumioko (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The number of external links caused me to question what they are bringing to the article. If there is additional content in them that could be used, it should be written into the article and the links given as sources. If not (ie they are different write-ups of the same story) they probably fail WP:ELNO no. 1 (they do not "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.") They might also give the impression that the article is approaching WP:MEMORIAL territory.
    • I removed a couple including the youtube one. --Kumioko (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the above points are A-Class blockers under our criteria, but they might be worth taking a look at. Thank you for you excellent work, EyeSerene^talk 11:22, 18 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 03:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Horses in World War I

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets all of the criteria, and I think it is one of the larger World War I topics to be worked on during the WWI contest. There have been extensive discussions on the talk page regarding what to include in the article and what not to include, as we are trying to keep the article focused on the horses themselves instead of ancillary information about the things surrounding them (extensive information on tack, cavalry uniforms, listing every WWI poem/picture that included horses, etc). Due to this, comments on comprehensiveness are especially welcome. Dana boomer (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with the external links, dab links, or alt text. Well Done!
  • More to follow... TomStar81 (Talk) 01:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • See if you can link to any of the paintings named at the end of the article, and to any of the poetry named there as well. Otherwise, everything looks good. Fascinating read! TomStar81 (Talk) 06:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Tom, sorry for taking a couple of days to get back to the last comment. I have looked, but not been able to find WP articles about any of the paintings or poems mentioned. Maybe you had better luck? It would be nice to be able to link to them, but I'm honestly not enough of an art expert to be able to determine notability of paintings and create the articles myself :) Thanks for the comments, though. Dana boomer (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 22:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Support Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Comments Very nice article, well researched and written. You do have some rough prose in places that you might want to fix.

For example, in the lead: Ultimately, because the Allies prevented the import of horses to the Central Powers, a lack of horses contributed to Germany's loss of the war. You mean the Allied blockade, right? Ultimately, the Allied blockade prevented importation of horses to Germany; the Germans could not replace the horses they lost.

(but presumably this was a problem for the Allies as well, even if there was no blockade for them).

Another example: Even before the beginning of the war, many British tacticians realized that increasing technology was changing the style of warfare, limiting the use of cavalry, and bringing an end to the era of mounted warfare. changing technology, changes in military technology, or something. Technology wasn't increasing. Advances in technology changed the conduct of military operations. Or something.

"Overwordiness" ;) : This belief in the usefulness of cavalry resulted in resources being reserved for training and maintaining cavalry regiments that were rarely used, as well as many troops and horses being lost in fruitless charges against enemy machine guns The persistence of the cavalry charge as an acceptable tactical maneuver resulted in ... Probably here also you need a summary of dragoons versus light cavalry (in Brit more or less the same but not elsewhere). Campbell was right, no doubt.

encountering trench warfare This is ambiguous. When they arrived at the Mons, they encountered a system of warfare, the trench system, that did not lend itself to cavalry attack.

I hope you see what I mean with this. I really like this article, and I will support it. I just think you could use another read through or two. Oh, btw, the old peer review needs to be closed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Great ideas, I'll let folks know we have comments -- Not sure we are tracking things over here, is there any way to transclude this discussion at the relevant talk page? (Probably not, I suppose) Also, no idea how to close a peer review, can anyone help? Montanabw^(talk) 23:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Follow up-- Made some wordsmithing changes where recommended, see if that makes the language clearer. Montanabw^(talk) 04:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the c/e, Montana. The PR isn't an old one, it's a new one that I opened around the same time I opened the A-class review. As far as I know, there is no prohibition against this. I opened the PR mainly to hopefully get opinions from some editors who were orientated towards the horse or warfare aspects, who may have a different view of some of the issues, or be able to point out jargon that the rest of us aren't seeing. I really like to have someone completely new to the entire subject go over my articles before FAC, just to make sure there's not something completely obvious that I'm missing! I do appreciate all of the comments here though! Dana boomer (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

SupportComments While me going over this article again isn't a "fresh set" of eyes, it's gotten substantially better since the GA review last month. Maybe because I read it four or five times then, I'm not seeing much to talk about. Anyways...

• "A January 2010 documentary by the History Channel also featured the horses of World War I." Is this worth mentioning in the lead? There's only one sentence about it further down.

• I changed the last two sentences of the lead into one more generic sentence that summarizes both. Hope this works...

• "Another memorial to the men of the Australian Light Horse Brigade and New Zealand Mounted Rifles, as well as two other corps representing aviation and camel riders, exists as the Desert Mounted Corps Memorial, or Light Horse Memorial, in Canberra, Australia." The 'exists as the' part seems rather clunky. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Changed to "is the" - better?

Thanks for your comments, Brad. I believe I have addressed the two comments above, please let me know if you think that further changes are needed. Dana boomer (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, Dana, much better. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• References comments - locations for Herwig, Jarymowycz and Pinney? Otherwise they look fine. "The First Shot: 22 August 1914" was a really interesting read. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. I believe I have added publishers for the above, plus a couple more I found, and made them at least somewhat consistent :) And yes, I really enjoyed that article too! Dana boomer (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good, thanks! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I believe this article meets the criteria. Only a couple of minor points from me:
  • in the Central Powers section, the emdash should be unspaced per WP:DASH; there are another couple of examples in Casualties section as well;
  • the page ranges in the citations should have endashes. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support. I believe I've taken care of these two things. I'm not that good with dashes, however, so I may have just messed them up further :) Please check my work! Dana boomer (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, you got them all. Good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:07, 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.

---

HMAS Sydney (R17)

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominator(s): -- saberwyn

With all the focus on battleships and battlecruisers, is been a while since a birdfarm has made an approach to the higher article ratings. To help remedy this, I am nominating the article for the Australian aircraft carrier/troopship HMAS Sydney (R17) for A-class review. Sydney was one of only three conventional aircraft carriers to operate in the Royal Australian Navy, and the only one to see wartime service (Korea as an aircraft carrier, Vietnam as a troop transport).

I believe that the article meets the standard for A-class articles...if not, a few alterations would make it so. It has been through a peer review, although only one editor was able to comment. All comments and constructive feedback are appreciated.

Please note that I prefer to intersperse my replies with your comments to keep ideas together...if you don't want this done to yours, please specify. -- saberwyn 09:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - I see two {{cn}}'s, otherwise all references look good. No dablinks or external links problems, and alt text is present. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The first "citation needed" is for the statement that Sydney won the 1950 Gloucester Cup: the statement is currently cited, but I want to find something more authoritative than Column 8, a newspaper readers' observations column. The second is for information I can 'prove' (through the use of images such as [34] and [35]) but have been unable to cite so far. There is also a {{clarification needed}} in regards to a "YE", which is listed as part of the ship's sensor suite, but I have no idea what it is. Any advice on how to deal with these would be great. -- saberwyn 06:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Per comments below, all three tags have been stripped out. -- saberwyn 09:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• The infobox is lacking some useful info like ship sponsor and ship power; the latter should also be added to the paragraph describing her.
  • I personally don't see the value of specifying the ship's sponsor in the infobox...it doesn't add much to the understanding of the ship and adds a line to an already-long infobox.
    • I won't sweat the sponsor, as I agree that it's really not that useful.
  • As for power, do you mean shaft horsepower/kilowatts for the turbines? I'll need to track that information down.
    • Yes, I suspect it's about 40,000 shp, but verify that figure.
      • Done
• Be sure to distinguish between RN and RAN FAA squadrons more consistently since they have duplicate numbers.
  • RN and RAN squadrons do not duplicate, when the carriers were acquired by Australia, these previously-decommissioned squadrons were recreated specifically for RAN service, and the numbers were struck from future RN usage. All squadrons mentioned in the article are part of the RAN FAA for the 'duration' of the article.
    • I did not know that, interesting. Then make a note as to which ones are British; simply calling it a Naval Air Squadron or somesuch isn't much of a clue.
• What were the drawbacks to her relieving HMS Thesus?
  • The source does not specify, all that is stated is: "There is some evidence that consideration was given to sending Sydney to add to the naval air strength [following problems with Theseus] but the drawbacks were so overwhelming that the idea was dropped."
    • I think that Thesus may have had problems with her catapults, but I don't know for sure.
• What do you mean by UP 28 when referring to the helicopter? Serial number, type designation, what?
  • Visual identifier painted on the side (see File:Sikorsky S-51 UP-28.jpg). What would be the best way to make this clear?
    • Describing it in the caption works fine, IMO.
• What do you mean when you state that Sydney provided an air patrol for the carriers of TF 95.8? A defensive carrier air patrol? If so then clarify and link it.
  • I've changed it to read "combat air patrol" in all instances, but I will need to track down the source and be 100% sure that this is the intention. Linked in first occurance.
    • Yeah, combat air patrol, that's what I meant ;-)
• What Task Element? No prior reference to provide context.
  • I don't know what you mean. The phrase "Task Element" appears three times, the first two also give the identifier (Task Element 95.11), while the third does not give the identifier, but is in the same paragraph as the second mention.
    • I must have missed them as I noted Task Force, but not Task Element.
• Couple of awkwardly written sentences have been marked as such.
  • They have been rephrased. How do they look now?
    • Good.

Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC) And I think that Graeme's right; I'm pretty sure that a YE is some sort of TACAN beacon. My issues have been addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks muchly for your comments. -- saberwyn 09:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment

THe pennant number crash in the opening sentence could use some attention, as could a bit of explanation for the pennants when the RAN go more US.

Any suggestions on how to format it? I don;t think there's been a recent warship A/FA where the ship carried multiple numbers during her career.

The change to a US-based system is explained at the relevant point (1969, in the Vietnam War section)... the information there is all I can reliably source.

I think that YE is a homing beacon aerial, US equipment.

In that case, I've stripped it out, as a homing beacon isn't really part of a radar suite.

GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I would suggest that one of the pictures in the armament, sensors, and aircraft section be removed since at larger setting having these two pictures so close together could create issues for the text.
    • Bofors pic removed.
  • I would also suggest that you link to Santa Clause in the article text, while this is a well know thing in the west, other readers may not grasp that immediately. This is just a suggestion, but it could be worth looking into.
    • Done
  • "...and a RAN pilot undergoing landing qualifications aboard HMS Illustrious on 17 March 1949 crash-landed..." Crash landed where? On the carrier, near the carrier, into the carrier? See if you can nail it down.
    • Attempting to land on the carrier. Hit the deck too hard, bounced over the arrester barrier, and came to a stop in the deck park, after totalling four other aircraft. Tweaked to hopefully clarify.
  • Please address the citation needed tag in the 1941-1959 section (last paragraph).
    • I've replaced it with a hidden note explaining my concerns. If I haven't found anything by the time I nominate this for FA, I'm going to remove the claim entirely.
  • You have a red link for the term bombardment spotting, may I suggest linking to the term artillery observer as a substitute for the article? It may or may not be appropriate for the article, but I wanted to suggest it.
    • If by 'artillery', you mean USS New Jersey (BB-62). :P A logical suggestion until a dedicated article can be created.
  • "The rescue was the longest helicopter rescue transit over North Korean territory during the war, and Sikorsky pilot received both the British Distinguished Service Medal and the United States Navy Cross: the only instance of the two medals being awarded for the same action." By the only instance to you mean the only instance of USN and RN personal receiving the same award, or do you mean the only instance ever in recorded military history? It may be worth clarifying the point here, as the statement could be seen to go either way.
    • The only time the DSM and the Navy Cross were given to the same man for the same event. Tweaked to clarify... now reads "the only instance of these two medals being awarded to the same person for the same action".
  • I'm puzzled by the repeated returns to Seasbo, while I understand that it operated as a FARRP for the carrier I'm at lost as to why the ship could not be resupplied underway. IF attached to the US 7th Fleet then a USN tender could have done this, unless there was a mitigating reason for not using supply ships to refuel and rearm Sydney. Can you explain this?
    • Not without specific references to sources. From what I've picked up from elsewhere, in the 50's, RN-designed ships were still fine-tuning the whole "replenishment at sea" concept. There would also have been major incompatibilities USN and RN/RAN equipment. Plus, ten days in port means shore leave.
  • Address the citation needed tag in the fast troop transport section please.
    • As I said to the_ed17 above, I can prove it, but I can't cite it. I'm removing the statement until I can find an explicit source for it.
  • "On 1 March 1967, the ensign flown by RAN ships was changed from the British White Ensign to the Australian White Ensign" Why the change? The article doesn't say, but I am curious to know.
    • Until 1967, the RAN and the RN both flew the British White Ensign. When the Vietnam War rolled around, Australia was involved, but the United Kingdom wasn't. The thought was that Aussie warships could be mistaken for British warships, with all the resulting diplomatic hullabaloo. Around the same time, Australian national pride in the RAN and the general population prompted pressuring for Australian warships to have a unique identifying symbol. These led to the design of a new ensign (pretty much the normal Australian flag with the blue background and white stars reversed), it got the royal thumbs up in 1966, and entered use in 1967.
  • On the whole, a good article, but work still needs done before the coveted "A" can be awarded to the bird farm :) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Alright then, I'm happy. Good luck with the cn tags, I am sure you will find the material if you look hard enough for it. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support I think that this highly detailed article easily meets the A class criteria (disclaimer: I added a few odds and ends to it). My only substantive suggestion for further improvements is to read through the article and remove repeated material - I've spotted and removed some, but there may be more. Other comments are:
  • The article states that Sydney returned to Sydney on 18 May 1966 and then departed on 25 April - I suspect this should be 25 May.
  • 'xth Battalion RAR' isn't a common way of naming these units - I'd suggest that you stick to the more common 'x RAR' (eg, 1 RAR, 5 RAR) after introducing this acronym for 1 RAR.
  • The article also refers to 'With 7th Battalion' and 'with 2nd Battalion'; this should be 'with 7 RAR' and 'with 2 RAR' respectively (and wherever else similar text crops up) Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 00:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Dürenstein

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...it fills a gap in wikicoverage in the War of the Third Coalition. Hard to believe that there is something undone re the Napoleonic Wars, but some of the battles where Napoleon wasn't seem to have been deemed unimportant. This is one of the minor battles occurring the Austrian capitulation at Ulm and the Battle of Austerltz. I became interested in this battle when I was in Dürenstein a few years ago and was impressed that several thousands of men fought it out on a narrow strip of land. The article has been through fairly stringent GA review with Sturmvogel, and the automatic dab monster doesn't seem to think there are dabs in it. It has my usual quirky citation style, it's illustrated, and it pretty much covers the gamut of sources available (or necessary, at least) on the battle. Thanks in advance for your constructive comments. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with dab links or alt text. One external link is highlighted green, please check and advise on the status of this link.
  • More to follow later... TomStar81 (Talk) 07:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

green highlights. It linked to a very small page, through a redirect, but when I went back to it, the whole website had been remodeled. So I just removed the citation and the sentence. It was a bit of local color, but unnecessary to the article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That happened to me once while working at USS Missouri (BB-63), so I can relate. A piece of advise: in about six months or so the site with your cite should come up at the internet archive, and once that happens you will be able to re-add it if you so choose.

• • Second to last paragraph of the dispositions section: "The Austro-Russian force were mixed troops of infantry and cavalry, with over 68 artillery under the overall command of the Russian general Kutuzov, who had learned the military arts under the tutelage of the great Suvorov himself." Who was the great Suvororv? The article does not say who he was, but I suspect he was a military officer. A brief note in the article should clear that up easily.

okay, done. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• • You twice mention naval engagements in the article, but leave no links to these or even expand upon their role in the battle, which leads me to believe that either examples ought to be provided or that the naval engagements should be removed altogether to allow for better focus on the land engagement described in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, done. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport by Magicpiano
  • Article is an interesting read, but there are a few places where the writing needs work, and it could probably use some (mostly light) copyediting. (I also second TomStar's last comment on naval engagements and Suvorov.)
    • Road to Ulm, 2nd para  Done
    • Battle plan, 2nd sentence  Done
    • There are occasional inconsistencies in capitalization of unit designations (e.g. "Gazan's Division" vs. "division")  Done

Magic♪piano 16:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reading!! Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good! Magic♪piano 02:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Support I have a few comments with regard to some of the references but I don't see anything major good job. I also checked it with AWB and nothing came up there.

• The losses section contains a quote for "barbarously handled" that is not referenced.
• the first paragraph of the Aftermath section contains a quote for "like chandeliers" that is not referenced
  • these both have the citation at the end of the sentence.
• I think that ref 3 that appears to be a note should be moved to a seperate notes section
  • Reference 3 is a note and a citation, and I saw no need for a separate notes section.
• references 66, 68, 70, 71 and 72 are identical and I think should be combined using the ref name template.
  • This is consistent throughout, and not actionable.
• Refs 21 and 25 appear to be identical and should be combined
• refs 26, 28, 29 and 45 should be combined
• refs 31 and 34 should be combined
  • I prefer not to use the named refs template, because it is confusing.

--Kumioko (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• • thanks for reading! If you want, I'll duplicate the citation for the two quotes, but I see no need to do that. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I added my support. Although I think the refs are a little cluttered I see no need to withhold it. --Kumioko (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Support

• I cleaned up one bit of bad phrasing, but otherwise looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support, with just one issue:

• "possibly of greater significance, the Imperial Eagles and guidons of the 15th and 17th Dragoons were taken by the Austrians." Why is this so significant, in a military sense instead of just for French pride?

French pride. I'll clarify. I saw you cleaned up the text. Thanks! Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the text in some places and that's the only major issue. – Joe N 20:50, 15 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 23:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Roderic Dallas

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Major revamp of an old article on a great pilot and leader of men in World War I, generally reckoned to be second only to Robert Little on the list of highest-scoring Australian aces, but given Dallas' almost complete indifference to making claims, who knows? This is a joint nom with Georgejdorner, who added a great deal of information gleaned from the subject's sole full-length biography, while I looked after the format and added some further detail from other sources. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support This is an excellent article which easily meets the A class criteria. I do have a few suggestions for further development though:
  • "Dallas would later evoke wonder that he could fit into the cramped cockpits of fighter planes." is unclear and the prose is a bit purple and old-fashioned
  • "he was considered to possess the feline reflexes of a born athlete" ditto
    • Fair enough - as a minimilist approach, how about something like Dallas would later inspire surprise at his ability to fit into the cramped cockpits of fighter planes. Despite his size, he was a fine athlete with quick reflexes.? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
      • 'Dallas would later inspire surprise at his ability' is a bit cumbersome, though I'm not sure what an improvement would be without seeing the supporting source - could you say 'Observers were later surprised that Dallas could fit into the cramped cockpits of fighter planes"? Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • J.A. Jensen could be red linked
    • I've just linked this to Jens Jensen (who appears to have been a rather nasty piece of work judging from his article!)
      • Tks for finding him, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that 'gulled' might be a bit of an obscure term - 'tricked', perhaps?
    • Probably more like it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Was No. 1 Squadron's strength reduced from 18 to 15 pilots or aircraft? (or both?)
    • Fair question - George, can you answer? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Aircraft - altered accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • You may wish to double-check the location details for the Osprey books in the references section - the company gives its location as Botley (though I think that they used to be based in Oxford proper). Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmm, it always used to be Oxford, but I will check. Tks for review, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
      • The books in question say "Botley, Oxford", and since Oxford is a city (as opposed to them saying "Oxfordshire", the county) I think it's probably fair enough (as well as pragmatic!) to leave as Oxford. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. From looking at Google maps it seems that Botley is pretty much a suburb of Oxford. Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Support Fascinating fellow. Sources look good, it's comprehensive, and I read for prose. I have a couple of prose/clarity issues, which are really nitpicky, but I figure you're going on to FAC so I'll bring them up here.

trialled? You made that up. It's not really a word, is it?

It's in Wictionary...!

he generally preferred to be soft-spoken and was not known to curse or drink alcohol, nor often to smoke....Pondering...does one prefer to be soft-spoken, or is this a normal modulation?

I think it's a valid figure of speech but could alter to "was generally soft-spoken and not known to curse..."

topping the entrance examination over eighty-four students. He scored higher than 84 students? Is that what you mean by topping? Out of how many?

Actually looks like there were 84 students in total so how about "topping the entrance examination over 83 other students"?

pilot's license 1514...does this mean he was the 1514th person to get a license? in Britain? the Commonwealth entirely?

I understand that to be the number on the certificate, whether it literally means he was the 1514th such licensee I don't know but I wouldn't have thought it an issue...

I figured that a French Maurice Farman was an aircraft, but I initially thought it was a person. Is there anyway to mark this so that it is obviously an aircraft and not a person

I could add "biplane" after it...

Bloody April. I'd clarify this specifically. As Bloody April began, so-called because the RAF had particularly high casualties, ...

How about "As British losses in the air mounted during Bloody April..."?

image of Dallas in fur coat: I'd say to protect, not address.

Okay.

His men also saw that he would not only look over and protect his rookie pilots .... look over? watch over? look out for? that's what you mean?

How about just "His men also saw that he would not only look out for his rookie pilots..."?

new mount with inline engine....?

Will link to Inline engine (aviation).

...someways one of his planes came off? does this mean one of the wings?

"Plane" is probably short for "tail plane" (meaning one of his tail wings) but I generally prefer not to link in direct quotes unless 100% sure what was meant.

were the Sopwith Camels more agile than the triplanes?

I'm not certain of that, but the Camels were probably stronger and certainly better armed. I wasn't planning to include a comparison...

down dived from a still higher altitude.

Might change to "had dived".

death/legacy section: I would start it with this sentence Dallas never read the letter from headquarters promoting him to Lieutenant Colonel and appointing him to the command of a wing—relieving him from flight duty in the process.[2][38]

why was he on a solo mission? Wasn't that verboten? Or at least stupid?

Changing the first sentence is not a bad idea, will look at this and come up with something. I don't think we know for sure why he was flying solo, unless George has something in one of his refs.

Richtofen was in the hospital three months? this is confusing.

Could you elaborate? I'd agree it may be a bit fussy but it didn't seem confusing to me...

Adrian Hellwig, in the bibliography to his 2006 biography, his 2006 biography of Dallas ?

Yes, but I thought including "of Dallas" was a bit obvious/repetitive.

REALLY terrific article. Support for ACR! Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

On behalf of George and myself, thank you very much, Ruth. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with alt text or dab links. Two external links are reported as dead, please fix this forthwith.
    • Okay, ta.
  • Did Dallas go from Lieutenant to Major without passing through the captain step, and possible the 1st lieutenant step? The article seems to suggest this, but I have my doubts. See if you can turn up anything about this. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually it's all in there, but admittedly it gets a bit intricate when you go from Royal Naval Air Service rankings to the early days of the succeeding Royal Air Force. Dallas progressed from Flight Sub-Lieutenant to Flight Lieutenant to Flight Commander in the RNAS, then to Major in the RAF - so he was never a Captain per se, only the equivalent RNAS rank. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I couldn't find anything to pick issue with. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Tks Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:39, 14 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 23:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Army of the Danube

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...it fills a gap in wiki-coverage of the War of the Second Coalition, especially in southwestern Germany in 1799. It's been in progress since the fall, and it has a sister article, Army of the Danube Order of Battle. The Army of the Danube article has been through the GA process, and since then I've pared it down slightly, because it is paired with the Order of Battle. I look forward to your continuing good humor and tolerance of my quirky citation style (which is consistent) and appreciate your constructive criticism. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support No problems reported with dab links, external links or alt text. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 08:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I fixed a couple of dash issues, however, it looks very good to me. I have a couple of minor points, but none of them pressing enough to keep me from supporting. They are as follows:
  • the capitalisation of the titles in the Bibliography is inconsistent, I think they should be capitalised per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital_letters)#Composition titles

I generally use the capitalization in the title page. I've changed it to meet the MOS. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• • there is a curly " in the Broda source in the Bibliography section, this should be straight per the MOS (I'd change it myself, but I'm uncertain if it is actually meant to be there or not, so can you please verify whether it should and "test and adjust" accordingly?)

fixed.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• • in the main infobox, there is no country linked beside the flag icon, did you intend there to be, or are you leaving it blank for a reason? — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

isn't a country link repetitive? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It just seems a little striking on the eye because in the other infoboxes you've linked the entity beside the flagicon, but its probably no big deal either way. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

but it says French Directory immediately below it, which would make it redundant. If I remove FD from the allegiance line, will it make more sense? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. — AustralianRupert (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Support

• What's a Feldzeug Marshal?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • General of Infantry. I'll add it in parens. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:20, 14 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 21:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...it fills a gap in wikicoverage on the Field Marshals of the Hereditary States of the House of Austria, particularly during the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars. This is one of several articles I've worked on (others include Friedrich Freiherr von Hotze, Johann von Klenau, Maximilian, Count of Merveldt, Johann Heinrich von Schmidt, Friedrich Joseph, Count of Nauendorf, u.s.w. The article has passed GA (under scrutiny of an experienced project member), is well-sourced, cited in my usual style (without cite templates, full citation first time, abbreviated after that), and has a few illustrations. As of now, there are no dabs, alt= text is present on required images, and the links all work. I am the primary editor. I look forward to your helpful critiques! Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with alt text, dab links, or external links. Well done.
  • The last line fo the second paragraph of the childhood and early career section has the line "On 1 January 1790, at Loudon's explicit request, he was promoted to major general and at the end of June of that year, given the position of second colonel of the 34th Infantry-Regiment Anton Esterhazy." I'm a little puzzled over how one can be promoted to Major General and yet receive a position of Second Colonel, perhaps you could shed some light on this mystery?

good job! Of all the people who've read this, you are the first one who has either noticed this apparent contradiction, or considered saying something. I've explained it (I hope). It is correct, although it does look odd. This was a plum assignment for him, and probably quite profitable too.

Thanks for the clarification. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• • The formatting of the family section is awkward, I suspect that colons and stars have both been employed. Please choose on style and stick with it exclusively.TomStar81 (Talk) 02:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I used colons to indent and an asterisk for the little dot. Was that wrong? I've removed the colons, but for future reference, let me know. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

At this level, probably not; however they are likely to call you for it at an FAC. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I'm happy. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• question What is the following sentence trying to tell me: "As the third son of a cadet branch of the Fürstenberg family (Bohemian line), the prince was marked for a military career."? In particular I don't know what a cadet branch is nor do I know what a Bohemian line is. Is this standard knowledge in the English speaking world? MisterBee1966 (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

well, it's supposed to mean (1) cadet Branch = is a junior branch of a family line. For example, the House of Bourbon's cadet branch would be the house of Bourbon-Conde. It is similar to the relationship between the Bavarian Wittelsbachs and the Palatine Wittelsbachs (See War of the Bavarian Succession). (2) the Bohemian line: the main line that inherited the specific title was in Donaueeschingen, and the Bohemian line (the cadet line), was in, well, Bohemia, not in Germany. How would you say all this in German? Actually, when the prince died (not Karl Aloys, but his cousin Karl Joachim, Fürst zu Fürstenberg), Karl Aloys' son inherited the title. So although Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg was not Karl Aloys, Fürst zu Fürstenberg, his son became the Fürst zu Fürstenberg: Karl Egon II, Fürst zu Fürstenberg. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I had already visited this article at GA review. It would be nice if more of his personal life (parents, his two? brothers and sisters?, education, etc.) were known. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

some more added at family section (end) Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'll be happy to support if a few minor points can be addressed:
  • From the lead: "inheriting the family dignities". I think I understand what this is saying, but might "titles" or "honours" be more appropriate?

fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Relating to MisterBee's comment above, is there more detail that can go into the Childhood and early military training section? For example, presumably he was "marked for a military career" from an early age; I think explicitly saying this might be hlpful even if we can't put dates and numbers to it. Similarly, mentioning his age at various milestones would be more informative that just giving the dates (start of service, promotion to captain etc).

I added a few details, but there isn't much. He moved quickly through the food chain. I added more on his siblings, etc., to the family section at the end, explaining why the title went to his son. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - we can only stick to the scope of the sources available. Your additions are helpful. EyeSerene^talk 08:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "This was a customary appointment in which a rising-star..." How about something less idiomatic than "rising star" (which incidantally shouldn't be hyphenated)? 'potential senior commanders' perhaps?

I changed this.Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• • There are some tense contradictions; for exmaple "In these early days of the French revolutionary wars..." might be better as "In the early days of the French revolutionary wars..."
  • The article uses British and English interchangably in places. Is this correct?

It does? I didn't see it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, once :) I've altered it. EyeSerene^talk 08:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• • There are some long, comma-intensive sentences that might benefit from being split.

went through and did that.Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend a full independent copyedit if you're heading FA-wards, but otherwise it's an excellent, well-researched, fascinating article. Well done! EyeSerene^talk 10:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks. I'll ask someone else (possibly JN) to do a ce if I plan to take it further. Right now it's not in my "imagined" queue for FA consideration, but one never knows. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your amendments; support A-Class promotion. EyeSerene^talk 08:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments!  :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Support

• What's a confraternal award?
• He went from major to major general in 1790? That's a pretty big jump. But why would a major general be used as a second colonel?
• Please add a mention of his marriage before you spring the birth of his daughter on the reader.

Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:28, 5 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 20:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Lê Văn Duyệt

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey, Amore Mio YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll)

Article about a Vietnamese general who helped Gia Long start the Nguyen Dynasty; Gia Long made him the viceroy of southern Vietnam. Later he became involved in a bitter rivalry with the next Emperor Minh Mang; one reason was that Duyet tried to block the emperor's ascension to the throne. This lasted for around 12 years before Duyet died, after which Minh Mang posthumously convicted him of crimes and jailed his supporters, causing a revolt to breka out. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 06:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments My issues have been addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• This doesn't make sense: In the early 1820s, Duyet dispatched a delegation to seek out British officials in an attempt to buy storms, but the party got lost in storms
• What's an honorable jade belt? Was this some sort of special distinction?
• You might consider adding parenthetical names for place Westerners might known by a more modern or translated names.
• What are these? In addition, Duyệt was the instructor of three đình formalities which were copies of royal rituals.
• Is there a missing 'last' in this fragment? thus making Duyệt the holder of the post--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Done so far except what the dinh and the jade belt are. Need to look up YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 06:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Đình/dinh is đình làng, which is the center of the village community. It's as important as a city hall[36]. I also don't know what jade belt is, I got this from Choi's book. I'll try to locate a Vietnamese source for these information, but please wait a few days because all of bookstore and library have been closed during the Tết holidays.--AM ^(talk) 03:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Update I did a search today but I couldn't find out anything regard to "đình formalities" because I don't know which book historian Thien Do has used (Google prevents me from reading the citation sector). I'm sorry.--AM ^(talk) 04:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've clarified it from what I could find YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with external links. A number of your images are missing alt text, please add this forthwith. A number of dab links in the article need to be located and if at all possible fixed. More to follow later. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Done YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 06:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• • The section "Conflict with Minh Mạng" starts with the line "However, there was a lot of tension between the pair." This reads awkwardly to me, I think this could be safely removed from the lead of the section with no real loss in coverage.

Sure thing YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 04:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• • There seem to be a large number of red links in the article, has any attempt been made to see about getting these articles created? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Amore Mio are working on the redlinks, theoretically. We're the only two people active who write anything about the indept Nguyen Dynasty (1802-1883), but short one-liner stubs can be done real quickly YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 04:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No hurry, YeelowMonkey, I was just curious. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Working in some article. Please wait.--AM ^(talk) 12:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 04:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support, but would it be possible to add more images, or do something to break up the text? Especially in the section about conflicting with the new emperor there are extremely long blocks of text with absolutely nothing to break it up, making the article very unappealing for a reader. – Joe N 02:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The only other thing is a map of his citadel. Not great but added nonetheless YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:29, 3 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.

---

SMS Goeben

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Finally, the last of the individual German battlecruisers has made its way to MILHIST ACR. This article passed GA last month; I feel it's comprehensive and meets the criteria for A-class. I welcome any and all comments and suggestions for the article. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with alt text or external links. One dab link needs to be located and if at all possible removed.
  • "...and named after the Franco-Prussian War general August von Goeben." Under the circumstances I think general should be capitalized since it precedes a proper name.
  • A little more detail on the coaling could be of use to readers, among other things it would be of interest to know who controlled the coal supplies used to refuel the battlecruiser and whether or not the Germans had to compensate the Italians for the use of the coal in their ports.
  • The third paragraph of The pursuit of Goeben and Breslau section contains the sentence "Troubridge was by then convinced that any attempt to attack Goeben with its big 28 cm guns with his four older armored cruisers would be suicidal, and so he broke off the chase early on 7 August." This seems to contradict the she format used in the article, and either needs to be clarified or fixed.
  • Given the number of odd sentences and a few awkwardly worded/phrased parts of the article I would suggest putting in a request for a copyedit from a third party source.
  • The last paragraph of the last section in the article starts with "In 1936, the ship had her name officially shortened to Yavuz." I would suggest providing her name before the official shortening just so people do not have to go looking for the original name to compare the two. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I've fixed most of the things you've pointed out. The coal in Messina was from a German collier, so there was no need to pay anybody :) Can you give me some examples of awkward wording? Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I think that Parsecboy's done a good job of that, he hit on a few examples I had picked out. In particular the mix of US and British spellings, that needs to be fixed. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 10:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• You've got a mix of British and American spellings, pick one. Your conversions will default to British unless you add |sp=us to the template or have them abbreviated.
• Displacement needs to be converted between long tons and metric tons for both the infobox and main body.
• Shouldn't 'German navy' be capitalized as it's a proper noun? she was commissioned into the German navy, on 2 July 1912
• Periodic maintenance reads awkwardly here: 21 August to 16 October for periodic maintenance I'd just delete periodic entirely, but that's just me.
• How did she recoal off Denusa? Rendezvous with a collier? Inquiring minds want to know!
• Convert the 50 sq meter damage to English units in the 1914 section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think I've got everything you pointed out, except for the coaling bit. Halpern says on page 52 that Souchon arranged to meet a collier in the Aegean, but on page 56 (where the bit about Denusa is mentioned) he doesn't state specifically that it was this collier. I'd assume it's the same though. Parsecboy (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually I'd be surprised if it was the same one, but no matter. I think Massie talks about this, have you read him for this episode?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• The engagement of 14 November 1914 is the Battle of Cape Sarych; a link would be appropriate. I just got a book that covers all of the Black Sea engagements and should be able to expand that article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • • Is Hough's statement about the longest-serving dreadnought still true? I believe that his book was originally published in the 60s as my Dad had a copy. How does that compare with the Iowas? I dunno if you want to count reserve/mothballed time or not, but the date of being stricken should govern last available date.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Goeben has had by far the longest time on active duty. New Jersey, which was the longest serving Iowa, spent about 20-21 years on active duty between 1943 and 2001. Goeben was in commission from March 1912 to December 1950, which is over 38 years, nearly twice as long as New Jersey. If you include the reserve time, New Jersey goes to 58 years (commissioned in 1943 and turned into a museum in 2001), Goeben goes to 59 years (commissioned in 1912, sold to breakers in 1971). So by either metric Goeben is still the longest serving dreadnought. Of course, New Jersey has existed longer, given that she's been a museum for the last 9 years, but I don't think anyone would call that military service in any capacity. Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is in good shape, but it needs more work to reach A class status. My suggestions are:
  • The article's coverage of the ship's post-WW1 Turkish service is inadequate. There's no discussion of the role she played in the Turkish Navy and it's unclear from the text if she put to sea on any occasions other than when she carried Atatürk's body in 1938.

• • • There just isn't much on the ship's Turkish service; I can't write what I can't source. Staff more or less stops after the end of the war, and Conway's is fairly short on detail. I did add a couple of lines about the visit of Missouri in 1946 though.
      • Have you looked for books and journal articles on the post-war Turkish military and diplomatic relationships? Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• • The second and third sentences in the first para seem to be too detailed for the lead paragraph
  • The article has some awkward grammar and text written in the passive voice and would benefit from a copy edit

• • • Re passive voice: in some places, it just doesn't make sense to put it in active voice (namely, those where the actor is unknown or exceedingly vague, or where it is very repetitive, such as having to state it was Souchon who sent the ship anywhere). For example: "The work was done though the construction of steel cofferdams, which where then pumped out to create a dry work area around the damaged hull." It doesn't seem useful to point out that it was dockyard workers (or whoever) that erected the cofferdams and pumped them out. It adds nothing to the narrative. I've had a go at fixing the passive voice in other areas, though. Let me know what else you think needs to be fixed.

• • Every paragraph in the 'Construction' section starts with 'Goeben'

• • • Fixed.

• • "disbanding the Mediterranean Division was deemed to be out of the question" isn't great grammar and is unclear given that the article doesn't mention any proposals to disband the Division

• • • Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about that; all Staff says is The Second Balkan War, beginning on 29 June 1913, meant there was no thought of dissolving the Mediterranean Division. I haven't been able to find anything more about it, other than that the staff wanted to replace Goeben with Moltke in 1914.

• • What was the role of the Mediterranean Division? Was it simply to 'show the flag'?

• • • Basically, yes.

• • "However, Admirals Alfred von Tirpitz and Hugo von Pohl transmitted secret orders to Souchon instructing him to instead sail to Constantinople" - what this is 'instead' of isn't identified

• • • It's in reference to the Kaiser's order to either raid the western Med or break out into the Atlantic. I clarified this a bit more.

• • Pula is also referred to as 'Pola'

• • • Fixed.

• • I think that I've read that the first bombardment of Sevastopol took place before the Ottoman Empire declared war on Russia, and contributed to war breaking out - is this correct?

• • • Yes, the bombardment of Sevastopol was before Turkey was officially at war. I'm not sure how I forgot to put that in there before, though...

• • 'Black Seas Fleet' should probably be 'Black Sea Fleet' and isn't linked the first time it's mentioned
  • Is it possible to provide the date on which Admiral Souchon suspended operations due to the coal shortage?

• • • Nope, Halpern doesn't give us anything more specific than the end of 1916.

• • Almost every paragraph in the section on the ship's wartime service starts with 'On' then a date - this could be mixed up a bit

• • • Fixed.

• • The terms Istanbul and Constantinople are both used - I think that Constantinople is correct for this era Nick-D (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • As for Istanbul/Constantinople, there's a bit of a problem. For part of Goeben/Yavuz's career, the city was known as Constantinople, after 1930 it was officially Istanbul. I have changed the instances of Istanbul in the WWI sections, but have left those that cover the post-1930 stuff. Parsecboy (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support My comments are now addressed. I'd suggest that more be done to expand the post-war section before this goes to FAC though - it would be worth trying to find an editor with access to Turkish-language sources, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, and I really appreciate the work you did on the post-war section. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments.

• "As a result, the Mediterranean Division would need to remain in the area." Was someone considering moving it?
• "While returning from another transport escort operation on 26 December, Yavuz was mined twice in quick succession about one nautical mile outside the Bosphorus." Perhaps "was struck by mines"?
• "Only one destroyer, the Gnevny, had been able to close the distance and launch an attack, which missed." Was, not had been, would be better.
• "Russian forces were pushing heavily on the Ottomans during the Caucasus Campaign." Awkward.
• What happened to the coal shortage? You mention operations were suspended, and then suddenly they restart. Did the new admiral cancel the orders?

Please take care of these. – Joe N 16:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Re your first point: see towards the top of Nick's comments above.

What's wrong with "mined?"

I tend to agree with Joe here - while the usage may be technically correct, "mined" sounds like laying the mines, as opposed to being struck by them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.

I reworded that, let me know if it's better now.

I added a line explaining that coal shipments resumed following the armistice between Turkey and Russia in Dec. 1917. Parsecboy (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- a lot of work gone into this since GA; detail, referencing and illustration look good. Made a few tweaks to prose but essentially happy with how it reads, although could you not use the more common term "embezzlement" instead of "peculation", which I'm sure some will think is a typo for "speculation"? Other than that, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks for looking it over again, Ian. I made the change you suggested, as well as the two "mined" above. Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• All of the German Federal Archive images need English-language descriptions. Translations can be added and noted in English through the use of the {{en|English description here}} formatting.
• The lead image needs alt text.
  • Fixed
• Why do some of the split references contain a title and some not?
• Lead, "Following her commissioning in 1912, Goeben and the light cruiser Breslau formed the German Mediterranean Division (German: Mittelmeer-Division) in late 1912". Repeition of year is a bit distracting.
  • Fixed.
• Balkan Wars, "As a result, he ordered his ships make for Pola for repairs". Should this be "his ships to make for Pola"?
  • Yup.
• The pursuit, "In the event of war, Kaiser Wilhelm II had ordered Goeben and Breslau to either conduct raids in the western Mediterranean or break out into the Atlantic and attempt to return to German waters." Was this decision left up to the commanding officer, or are scholars not sure which he ordered?
  • The former, this has been clarified.
• 1914, "could not be defeated in detail by Yavuz". What is meant by "in detail"?
  • Basically, it means defeating a numerically superior opponent in successive engagements with only portions of that opponent (if that makes sense); it's been linked.
• 1914, "Yavuz inadvertently engaged" How do you inadvertently engage a fleet?
  • You run into them accidentally? :)
• 1915, "On 7 February, Yavuz conducted another such operation to receive Midilli." Had the first operation not worked, or had the Midilli gone out again in the meantime?
  • This was a second operation.
• 1915, "Yavuz and Midilli sank". I thought that the Yavuz was sailing with the Breslau in this encounter? Also, they were attempting to rescue two ships; one sank, but what happened to the other one?
  • Breslau = Midilli
• 1915, fourth paragraph. You switch back and forth between calling here the Goeben and the Yavuz. Although she may have still been under German control, she was technically Turkish, so should the Turkish name only be used? Also, it's rather confusing to have one ship called two different names in the same paragraph.
  • Fixed.
• 1916-1917 - "It wasn't until an armistice between Russia and the Ottoman Empire was signed in December 1917—formalized in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918—following the Bolshevik revolution in 1917" First, the multiple occurences of 1917 is a little distracting. Second, jumping from 1917 to 1918 back to 1917 is rather confusing. What about putting the insert after the Bolshevik revolution section; something like "signed in December 1917 following the Bolshevik revolution - formalized in the Treaty... - etc."?
  • Fixed.
• 1918 - I'm left with a few questions about this section - Why was only one of three holes repaired? Why were the dockworkers uncooperative? Why was it necessary that the demilitarization of a ship be "enforced"?
  • They were in Sevastopol, which is in Russia, hence why the dockworkers were uncooperative and why demilitarization had to be enforced. As for the repair work, I'm assuming it was because the other two holes required much more work than was possible to do at the time, and the ship could still get around with the holes.
• More of an idle question than anything else, but isn't it common to have ship articles located at the name under which the ship performed most of its duties/existed the longest? In this case, it was the Goeben for only three years, while it was the Yavuz or some variation for almost 60. Just a thought I had...
  • Generally, yes. But this ship is referred to as Goeben pretty much universally by that name, even while under "Turkish" service during the war, which is of course her most notable activity. For instance, you get 760 hits for Goeben+battlecruiser and 291 for Yavuz+battlecruiser in Google Books.

I don't really think any of the these things are a big deal, and shouldn't take much time to fix up. I look forward to supporting! Dana boomer (talk) 22:50, 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.

---

Yermolayev Yer-2

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominator(s): --Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

This article has passed GAR and I believe that it meets all the requirements for A-class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments This is a great article, but I think that it needs a little bit more work:
  • This text "The survivors were flown, in ever dwindling numbers, until the beginning of 1944 when none were left in front-line service. However, the restart of the production line in 1943 re-introduced the aircraft to combat operations in the latter half of 1944." is a bit unclear, and could be simplified
    • How is it now? Honestly I'm not sure what the problem was, but I've rewritten most of the second sentence, which is where I think the problem lay.
  • Did the heavy diesel engines change the range of this aircraft?
    • Yes, explained in the variants section.
  • The variants section needs a cite for each variant
    • Done
  • Is it possible to expand the operational history section? (and I acknowledge in advance that it may not)
    • Only slightly. I added a sortie count and losses for one regiment through the opening stages and have similar information on the other that I can add if y'all think it would help.
  • Is it possible to provide a comprehensive list of the units which operated this aircraft in the operators section? Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Done--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Great work. The only further suggestion I have for taking this to FA status is that the list of units could use a cite, but that's an easy fix. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with external links. One dab link needs to be located and fixed, if at all possible. One image is in need of alt text.
    • Fixed the dab. Deleted the three view as its license is suspect.
  • Please aim to have at least two paragraphs in the lead.
    • Done
  • In the fifth paragraph of the development section the last line reads in part "...it was canceled when the factory was evacuated in October." Are we talking about the larger evacuation of factories and other supply depots from the western USSR region to prevent them from falling into German hands? If so I think that warrants a note since this was a major gamble for Stalin and was at this point in the war a move that by all means seemed to be proof that the USSR would fall to the NDSAP forces. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I've expanded the reference a little, to explain that it was due to the German advance; is that you wanted to see?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • What I am driving at is summed up at Operation Barbarossa, specifically the part in bold here:

"The German High Command grossly underestimated the control the central Soviet government exercised. The German High Command wrongly thought the Soviet government was ineffective. The Germans based their hopes of quick victory on the belief the Soviet communist system was like a rotten structure which would collapse from a hard kick.[96] In fact, the Soviet system proved resilient and surprisingly adaptable. In the face of early crushing defeats, the Soviets managed to dismantle entire industries threatened by the German advance. These critical factories, along with their skilled workers, were transported by rail to secure locations beyond the Germans' reach. Despite the loss of raw materials and the chaos of an invasion, the Soviets managed to build new armaments factories in sufficient numbers to allow mass production of needed war machinery. The Soviet government was never in danger of collapse and remained at all times in tight control of the Soviet war effort."

As this relates to my last comment, the question is whether the cancellation of the plane in October had to do with this overall decision to evacuate the soviet factories and their workers from the war zone to safer positions. That fact is not clearly explained in the article, and its a point I would like to have clarified. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I explicitly said why the aircraft was cancelled, as stated in my sources. You're asking if it was related to the evacuation and _I_ think that it was, but none of my sources explicitly say that it was, so I can't say so lest I stray into OR. Now the AM-37 engine was cancelled explicitly because of the evacuation as stated in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support.

• Why did you link 1940s in the lead?
  • Fixed
• "With a gross overload weight of 11,000 kg (24,251 lb), fully 6,200 kg (13,669 lb) of that was payload." Fragment.
  • How does it read now?
• "Other problems were an excessive take-off run, defects with its engines and its defensive armament was inadequate." Awkward.
  • How does it read now?
• "This engine, like all diesels, offered a greatly reduced fuel consumption compared to a standard gasoline-powered engine, but a great penalty in weight." At a great penalty, perhaps?
  • Indeed.
• "The Yer-2 was not in squadron service when the Germans invaded on 22 June 1941," Perhaps just "when Germany"?
  • Done
• In discussing the raid on Berlin, you say three took off and two bombed Berlin, of which one was later shot down. What happened to the third one?
  • Added
• Please submit it for a copy-edit. I've pointed out the most glaring errors in the prose, but there are other places that could do with some tightening and touching up.
  • I'd much prefer to address these things myself so pointing them out as you did above is much more helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Would it be at all possible to add another picture? The Development and, to a lesser extent, the Operational history sections make large blocks of boring text.
  • Done.

Please take care of these before it's ready for A-class. – Joe N 20:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Rereading it, I only see one problem: in "A Yer-2 was modified with experimental Mikulin AM-37 engines, a reinforced undercarriage, armored seats for the navigator and gunner, and the original ShKAS machine guns were exchanged for 12.7-mm UBT machine guns," you forget parallel structure in the last phrase. All of your fixes look good. – Joe N 22:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've rewritten this clause and think that I've corrected the problem. See what you think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 12:05, 25 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 11:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oswald Watt

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it's a comprehensive look at a particularly interesting figure in Australian aviation, born in England and joining the French Foreign Legion as a pilot before transferring to the Australian Flying Corps, someone who was clearly well-known in his time but less so now, despite his legacy of the still-extant Oswald Watt Gold Medal for outstanding achievement in aviation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As years rolled by

I had difficulty keeping track of which years some dated occurrences happened. For instance, the year that the Battle of Cambrai happened would be useful to ignorant colonials like mine self. And there are some others.

Other than that, article seemed lively enough and well written.

Georgejdorner (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Tks George, I've always tended to only give a full date when the year changes but could probably afford to reiterate the year a little more often - done so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with alt text, dab links, or external links. Well Done!
  • More comments to follow. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Tks Tom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments - very interesting article, just a few comments:

• "He went back to Australia in 1900 to join the Militia" - this sentence comes off as if Watt's sole intention of returning to Australia was to join the militia. Is that correct?
  • Good call, will change to "and joined the Militia".
• Is it known why the family originally moved to Australia?
  • Unfortunately none of the bios in the SMH obit, Stephens or Cutlack go into this. The ADB implies a possible connection between his mother's death and the move, which I've reflected.
• Could it be clarified/expanded upon when Watt when to the UK for his MA and his subsequent return to Australia?
  • Apart from what's already there about earning the MA in 1904, ditto prev.
• What did he do in Eqypt? Fly around for the joy of it, fly commercially ...?
  • Ditto prev. I can clarify that he bought the Bleriot there, so since he gained employment with them subsequently in France it appears he flew for proficiency as much as anything, but of course I can't confirm the last bit.
    • Licked his wounds after his very public divorce case, I suspect. Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Heh, yep, that too - like the time a mate of mine felt compelled to go on an African safari after his divorce, which wasn't even public... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Is it known when he had been originally promoted to captain in the militia?
  • Fair question. It's no doubt in his service record at the NAA but you know I prefer not to cite that if possible. Will re-check other sources and see if I've overlooked it somewhere.
• "after he and his observer crash-landed in no man's land and succeeding in making" - shouldn't that be "succeeded" ...?
  • Certainly should - tks.
• Are there any further details available on his Croix de guerre, Mentions in Despatches or OBE?
  • Not a sausage in bios, Gazette or AWM (or even in the NAA service record if I remember rightly).
    • This story in The Argus appears to have the full citation for the Croix de guerre. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Tks Nick, except it looks like the Legion d'honneur, which I already have. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Is it known why/how he acquired the nickname of "Toby"?
  • Broken record time I'm afraid - nope!

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Tks for review, Bryce. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Taken care of pretty well everything above that I think can be taken care of. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Geez! No wonder he has fallen into obscurity; no source provides detailed information on half his life! Anyway, changed to support. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think it's really only the years between 1904 and 1911 that are thin on detail, and I'd say running multiple cattle stations in two states plus being in the Militia would occupy a fair bit of his time there. The rest of his life is well covered I think—not that common in my experience to find citations for MiDs, OBEs and foreign decorations, it's the Commonwealth awards for gallantry that usually score those... Anyway, tks again for review (and support)! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That was more meant as a joke pertaining to the questions above, as I do believe you have done a good job with the article and it is comprehensive; hence the support. Regarding the citations, while it isn't that common for the Second World War or further to discover these—until modern times that is (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc)—it is rather common to find copies of the citations for quite a number of awards at the AWM and, depening on the type of award among other things, in the London Gazette or even in service records, though the latter is rather uncommon unless they are an extract from the London Gazette. For example, with Harry Murray there are copies of the recommendations for his CMG, Croix de guerre and some Mentions available, among his other gallantry awards. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Remember that in this case his foregin honours came while he was still in the Foreign Legion, rather than in British/Australian service, you'd probably have to track down his French service record (if it exists) to find the citations! A lot of British records, including British Army gallantry citations from the First World War, and the majority of British Army other ranks' record went up in smoke in the Second World War when the building they were stored in was hit by German bombs (see [37]. Samples of British Army records (which include the original citations for a lot of Australian WWII awards) exist from 1935 to 1950, from 1950 on all surive, and include awards to Australians for Korea and Vietnam, see [38]. David Underdown (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Yet another great article Ian. I've got a few comments:
  • Watt's travels in his early years are a bit confusing - am I right in reading the article to say he was in England in 1911 and back in Australia in 1912?
    • That's my understanding, though no one source says "he got his certificate in England in 1911, then came back to Oz to recommend a site for CFS in 1912" - I have different sources for those two acts. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Heh, I tell a lie, the SMH obit does explicitly mention returning to Oz after getting his flying certificate in 1911 - altered accordingly... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The National Library of Australia's wonderful Trove search turns up a lot of digitalised newspaper articles on Watt. These are particularly useful for his divorce case, which received fairly extensive coverage. I suspect that this article explains why - his wife started divorce proceedings "alleging misconduct with a number of women unknown to the petitioner in Sydney and Melbourne and with Miss Ivy Shilling, at Sydney, between December 18, 1911 and July 1, 1912". According to this story (in the Hobart Mercury!) the affair with Shilling was proven and Watt lost custody of his child (there's a longer, but harder to read story on the findings here). These would be much better sources that the rather gossipy NZ newspaper article.
    • Heh, I went though scores of newspaper articles in NLA and GoogleNews and finally decided I had enough, but will check these out in due course. I agree the NZ Truth is trashy (yet clever - what's changed?!) which is why I didn't overplay it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Replaced NZ Truth ref with The Mercury, and reworded/expanded. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This book, while hardly unconnected to Watt, might be useful for filling in some of the gaps. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Tks Nick, might check this out if I decide to push this to FAC (I'm not planning to at the moment). Tks for review/support! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
      • No worries Ian - the article is looking fantastic. I agree that there probably isn't quite the depth of coverage needed for this to comfortably reach FA status, but I'd give it an A+ ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Support:

• Early career, "while there he also met leading". Is the "also" really necessary? This one comment doesn't negate my support, as this is another great Australian article! Nice work, Dana boomer (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Tks Dana - implemented your suggestion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 03:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Tks Tom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:17, 22 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.

---

Michael J. Daly

Promoted ---Eurocopter (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it has all the things required for A class. --Kumioko (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Why are things like single-handedly using a dash instead of a hydphen? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure are you referring to the mdashes/ndashes or something else? --Kumioko (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's right, single–handedly and machine–gun should be single-handedly and machine-gun, like D-Day. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Done I think I fixed all of these. --Kumioko (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with Dab links or external links. A handful of your images are missing alt text, please check and advise.

Do I need alt text for the ribbons? --Kumioko (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I say yes, but I am unsure if their is consensus on the issue. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok I think I can do that alt text for these is pretty easy. --Kumioko (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• • The second paragraph of the military service section has Daly start as a 2nd lientuent, then almost immediately bumps him to 1st lieutenant. A date for his promotion to second lieutenant would help add a window of reference for the time it took his to become a first lieutenant, please add such a date forthwith.

For this one I think it is pretty self explanitory. The battlefield commission made him an officer and then within a couple of months he got promoted to First Lieutentant, this is possibly due to other officers being killed or injured and they needed one, not sure and the references dont support that hypothicise. His promotion to Captain was within 2 years of his initial commission. --Kumioko (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• • How did his dad get wounded? Was this during a landing operation or was this during the drive to Germany? The article does not specify, but I would like to know.

I found out his dad was injured in Guadalcanal, in the leg. I will add this to the article in the next couple days. --Kumioko (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Silver Stars are not awarded lightly, perhaps you could elaborate on where he won those. Also, what were the purple hearts for? Obviously one was for the head shot, but what about the other one?

I cannot find any references to support why he got the silver stars, other than that he got them. --Kumioko (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• • You note is in quotes but I see no source listed for it, please add that to the article.

Which quote are you referring too? --Kumioko (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• • On the same note I find it unacceptable that we can not locate his entire ribbon attire. Surely someone must know exactly what he won, and I would appreciate it very much if you could track down the rest of his service medals and add those to the article as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have searched all the references (even the less than reliable ones) and I cannot find a complete listing of his medals or how exactly he got the silver stars and purple hearts. --Kumioko (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered a freedom of information act request for the info? Its just a thought, but the DOD may have this info available if you ask for it. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

They might but by doing that it could be argued that I would be crossing into original research territory. As much as I hate to say it this one might not be A class material like I thought it was. --Kumioko (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if the information is coming from the DoD itself, then it would not be original research. It would simply be research. The DoD is a source, after all, and they do keep records that could be used to your advantage here. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked about his records and they are thought to have been burned up in the fire at the Personnel records center in the 70's. If I submit a request though to be 100% sure they could take several months. --Kumioko (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:

Not sure about the status of this ACR given the above comments, but here are a few observations from me:

• in the lead, should "United States militaries" be "United States military's"?

Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• in the same sentence, I think Medal of Honor should have emdashes around it, e.g. "United States military's highest decoration—the Medal of Honor—for his actions..."

Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• per WP:MOS numbers less than ten should be spelt, e.g. "destroying 3 machine gun nests" should be "destroying three machine gun nests";

Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• His resignation from USMA should probably be put in to context, i.e. explain why he felt he needed to. I assume that he was concerned that perhaps the war might be over when he completed the course and graduated? (Of course, if no source explains this, it probably can't be added, but if it could be found that would be great;

Done - The reason he left was because he wan't a very good cadet. I added some info about this. --Kumioko (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• in the lead, the word "officer" could be wikilinked to Officer (armed forces);

Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• the Early life section might mention the name of his parents in the first sentence, if you know them both;

Half done - I half fixed this one. I haven't been able to find a ref about his mom but I moved his dad up in the section. --Kumioko (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• do we know why he was given a battlefield commission at all? (one assumes that his previous training at USMA had something to do with it, along with leadership in the field and possibly high numbers of casualties among other officers, but it might be nice to have this confirmed, i.e. was their a specific instance that led to his commissioning?)

Anyway that is it from me. Good work so far, by the way. The article may not be up to A class standard, but it is not to say that the work that you've put in is without merit, so I hope you won't be discouraged. Thanks for your contribution. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, even if it doesn't get promoted know I will note the reasons and see if I can fix it and then Ill resubmit. In the meantime I have a couple thousand more to create, build up and get promoted. --Kumioko (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I found a reference that answeres some of the issues above but I question if its sufficiently reliable. Could I get some opinions on this for a reference.--Kumioko (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about this one myself. I've not heard of Yankee Magazine before, so I can't really comment. If no one objects here, I'd say use it to fill in the gaps and see what happens. It might be the answer to a number of the questions above. Sorry I can't be of more help. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:Support

• 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. Yes

• 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. Mostly Yes

Use of the word 'enemy' in the lead may be considered POV (may be just change to Germans?)

Done --Kumioko (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did he and his wife briefly live in Ireland?

This is not mentioned in any of the references. --Kumioko (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a date for his wounding and his subsequent return to his unit as Second Lieutenant?

Nothing on this either. --Kumioko (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

When was he promoted to First Lieutenant?

None of the references mention when he was promoted to 1st lieutenant other than it was before april 18, 1945.

• 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. Mostly Yes

The lead should be reworked to summarise the article more fully, i.e. its a bit abrupt IMO

Could you give me an example of what its missing. Ill see if I can expand it a bit but if you have a suggestion for something its missing that would be great. --Kumioko (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You've actually done it already. Previously the lead summarised his life until the awarding of the MOH and that was it, but IMO it looks good now. Anotherclown (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• 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. Yes

• A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate. Yes

Overall I think this is a good article. And I'm heading towards support if you are able to resolve these issues (assuming the information is available, if its not just say so). Anotherclown (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good IMO. In light of the fact that I feel you have added all the information that is available I will now support its promotion. Top work. Anotherclown (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Would it be possible to add an image or something to break up the text? It forms two rather long, uninterrupted blocks. – Joe N 21:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I found an image of the Omaha beach landing and added that. I hope that works ok. --Kumioko (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support The fire would explain why no one seems to be sure of the awards and ribbons. It appears from a pass through that most of my issues have been addressed, so I offer my support. I would suggest noting in the article somewhere that the personnel records are thought to be destroyed though, that does seem to be important to the article at present. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I am not sure exactly how to incorporate this info, especially since I didn't submit a "formal request" but here is a link to the article explaining the fire. National Personnel Records Center fire. --Kumioko (talk) 14:39, 16 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.

---

• Promoted –Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Siege of Godesberg (1583)

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... it fills a gap in wikicoverage of the Cologne War (1583), and this was a particularly interesting siege in which the combatant entered the castle through the latrines. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've run the dab tool, and right now, there are no dabs.

all the alt text is present, but I'm thinking that some of it should be link= and no alt text.

the links are all good. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support: this is an excellent article in my opinion and one that I believe meets the A class criteria. As per above alt text, ext links and dabs all check out. The article is well written, referenced, structured and illustrated and I could find no major MOS issues (I fixed the couple I could find). I only have a couple of points, but they are only suggestions:
  • first sentence of the lead, I feel the word "also" is unnecessary;  Done
  • is there a need to include the co-ordinates in the infobox when they are linked directly above also? removed

Anyway, that is it for me. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reading! Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

Its walls strengthened, and its tower heightened, the fortress was thought to be nearly impregnable. This sentence in the lede lacks context. It's explained in the main body, but it needs clarification or deletion here.

This seems awkward: The cannonade began; cannonball after ball and mortar after mortar smashed against the walls. Not to mention that mortars fire shells ;-)

Either 'the' or 'St. Michael's' is redundant here: They had removed the roof from the St. Michael's chapel in the fortress foreyard And what in the heck is a foreyard? An outer courtyard, the outer ward, what?

The second sentence here seems a bit redundant and/or awkward: They methodically made their way through the rubble, killing the defenders as they went. The Bavarians possessed the ruins of the fortress.

Missing verb in this fragment? when Gebhard's troops plundered the abbeys in the Westerwald, in Westphalia, and brought with a couple of monks, first to Bonn

Shouldn't this be capitalized as it's a title? Wittelsbach archbishop prince-elector in Cologne --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

these ce should make it clearer. A foreyard is exactly that. The source is no more specific. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Re foreyard: that should have been forework. That's how I translated it originally, and I researched it at the time. I'll happily admit castle architecture is not my forte though. --JN466 23:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The German source has Vorburg. JN466 23:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Def of :VORBURG, f., die der hauptburg vorausliegende befestigung, auch in älterer sprache stadttheil auszerhalb der mauer oder der eigentlichen stadt, vgl. das aus vorburg entstandene franz. faubourg. mhd. vorburc, vurburc, daneben vorbürge, vorburge, vorborge, n. mhd. wb. Found hier on the Uni trier site. This would be the Grimm definition. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we could translate it as "outer ward". Looking into it some more, the Vorburg is a special case of the Zwinger (outer ward, i.e. the space between the outer wall and main wall of a concentric castle.) According to my German dtv Encyclopedia, Vorburg is a term used where the Zwinger widens to include buildings. Example: [[39]]. It seems that English uses "outer ward" for such cases as well. At least I can find a number of google books references to a "chapel in the outer ward": [40]. There are no such matches for "chapel in the forework". --JN466 10:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You can see the location of the chapel in this pdf document (a doctoral thesis), p. 149. It's shown in pink towards the bottom left of the page. --JN466 10:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer outer ward rather than forework as the latter makes me think of some structure like a bastion or a ravelin rather than the space between two walls. The last remaining issue is this: The usual equipage of siege warfare—the belfry, the trebuchet, the crossbow and the long bow[18]—would be ineffective, given the distance between the curtain wall and the valley floor. I don't think that long bows, per se, were normal siege equipment, unless you happened to be English or Welsh. What I think you're trying to convey is that the range was too great for normal missile weapons, of all types and the besiegers had no choice to use expensive cannon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments Per that source just linked, I think we should mention the attackers' having a go at the latrines before the last stand in the chapel, rather than after. The way I read the sources, it took the attackers two days from the explosion to gain entry to all parts of the castle and kill all the defenders. The defenders made their last stand in the chapel, but this was only the last episode in the two days of fighting after the outer wall was breached. The defenders did not hold out two days in the chapel, and the latrines were not related to the attacks on the chapel, but part of the fighting prior to that, when the defenders still held the castle itself. That is my recollection from reading the sources; but extra eyes will be useful. --JN466 23:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• [41] --JN466 00:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• yes, that's the way I read it too. Thanks for clarifying. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• "In later correspondence with his brother, Ferdinand wrote that after the storming of the castle, everyone inside was killed: men, women, children, young and old, with the exception of these three; his troops liberated the ecclesiastical prisoners and the commander of the Dutz garrison; he makes no mention of Suderman, Buchner or Buchner's wife" There is logical contradiction in that sentence. Plus the citation seems to be incomplete; I can't find a reference to the contents of Ferdinand's letter on pp. 43-44 of Weyden. --JN466 11:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• I've added a sentence about the castle's dead being buried in mass graves. Not sure it is in the best place where I put it; do feel free to move it elsewhere. --JN466 12:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support for A-Class. --JN466 12:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support I don't usually voice strong support, but this articles outstanding quality is truly worthy of note. Well Done!!! TomStar81 (Talk) 08:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Tom. JN and I are going to extract a few more details from the morass of conflicting reports, and perhaps a bit more on the layout of the fortress, and then we hope to nom for FA. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:22, 17 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 11:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Bombardment of Papeete

Nominator(s): XavierGreen (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the standards of an A-class article. XavierGreen (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with alt text or external links. One dab link needs to be located and fixed though.

    I think i fixed this.XavierGreen (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  • The edit tab for the background section is out of place, please see if you can fix it.

    I don't know what you mean by this?XavierGreen (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Your gun caliber sizes are all in metric, but we need standard measurements as well for the benefit of those who can not think in metric.

    Fixed this.XavierGreen (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Your dates need to be consistent, either day month year or month day year, but not a combination of the two as current appears in the article.

    I fixed thisXavierGreen (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  • No citation is provided for the lines "The French land batteries and the gunboat in the harbor attempted to return fire, but scored no hits on the German cruisers. The German cruisers soon turned their attention to the French shipping in the harbor." in the battle section, please add one.

    Added a citation.XavierGreen (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  • How long did the battle last? At what time did the German's withdraw? the article doesn't say, but I would like to know. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

    The Germans arrived at 7 A.M. and withdrew by 11 A.M., ive added this to the article.XavierGreen (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 19:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support

• The type of cruiser should be specified in the lead and in the main body.

  I added the type and class of the cruisers.XavierGreen (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• What raid at Fanning? That's mentioned out of the blue.

  Nurnberg and Titania were sent by spee to raid the cable station at fanning on September 7th, i added a link to a stub about the event. It was bloodless and relatively unnotable besides the fact that the wireless was destroyed, the cable cut, and some gold was siezed.XavierGreen (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• All gun sizes should have a hyphen as they are adjectives.

  I changed it so that it is hyphenated, but the conversion template will not allow one to use both the abreviation function and the adjective function so the measurements are now unabreviated.XavierGreen (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• What were the French coastal artillery guns aside from those of Zélée?

  The other guns were extremely antiquated and apparently either innoprative or to obsolete to be used, as such only the landed guns of the Zelee were used as the coastal artillery during the battle. I changed the text to reflect this.XavierGreen (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Use the accents each time for names like Zélée.

  Fixed, i also added the umlauts on Nürnberg. XavierGreen (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• The shells fired by the Germans were HE and less useful in a ship-to-ship gunnery duel like Coronel so be careful that you don't overstate your case here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  During the battle of the Falklands most of the German cruisers ran low and in some cases completely out of ammunition of all types. As such every shell wasted at Papeete could have been used instead at the Falklands. The arguement isnt my own, and is presented in multiple texts on the battle and cited as such with the article. I haven't seen any information on the types of shells fired at the Zelee and Walkure, but i assume they would have used armour piercing shells against them?XavierGreen (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

  The bulk of the article is in American English, but the conversions are in British English. This can be fixed by adding |sp=us to each conversion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

  Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments This is a great article on an interesting topic, but I think that it needs a little more work:
  • Some background on the German East Asian Squadron's cruise prior to this action would be helpful - the article jumps straight into "Failing to catch the Samoa Expeditionary Force at Apia and having seen no action at all since leaving Tsingtao, the men of the German East Asian Squadron under Admiral Maximilian von Spee were anxious to meet the enemy in battle" without providing any background first

    There really isnt much background to get into. Spees squadron left Pagan with Emden going off on her own, and then pretty much just steamed about the pacific for a little while before heading to Samoa. I added a sentance or two more, but there really wasnt a whole lot going on with Scharnhost and Gneisau before they steamed into Apia.XavierGreen (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Was the Walkure armed? The article mentions her in the context of the French defensive units.

    It was a prize taken by the French and therefore a government vessel, it was unarmed however. I tweaked the text to reflect this.XavierGreen (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

  • "Von Spee's forces also outnumbered the French with over 1,500 sailors aboard their vessels, more than enough to overwhelm the 160 or so that Destremau had to oppose them." - it seems unlikely that he would have landed the entire crews of the ships

    FixedXavierGreen (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

  • As the battle was fairly simple, the 'Battle' section doesn't need to identify the nationality of each combatant every time its mentioned (eg, in "The French land batteries and the gunboat in the harbor attempted to return fire, but scored no hits on the German cruisers" 'French' and 'German' should be omitted as the Germans had no land batteries and the French no cruisers)

    FixedXavierGreen (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Was Papeete a city or town? It's called both things, including in the same sentence in one instance

    FixedXavierGreen (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

  • The prose is unnecessarily complex at times - theres a fair bit of repetition which could be omitted (I've had a go at fixing an couple of instances of this in this edit and this edit)
  • The statement that some of the cost of the bombardment "was repaid through the seizure of a German store on the island" seems questionable - was this 'store' [was this a business or a depot?] in any way associated with the German Government? If not, the term 'repaid' hardly seems appropriate.

    I changed the word to recouped.

  • Similarly, why were the German civilians who happened to be living in Papeete the "compatriots" of the raiders? When combined with the above it appears that the locals revenged themselves against German civilians who had nothing to do with the raid...

    Compatriots in the sense that they are citizens of the same nation, i can tweak it to change it if nessesary. They were interned so they were thrown in with the same lot of their homeland whether they liked it or not.XavierGreen (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

    • Yes, can you please change this? It makes it sound like the local Germans had something to do with the attack. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

      • Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm a bit worried about the wartime sources - they're probably not going to be neutral given the hysteria of the war years - can these be replaced with more recent sources? It's a bit telling that they're the sources which are provided for the two points above. Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

    Many of the wartime sources used are from America which was Neutral and not a party to the conflict at the time. Detailed accounts of the bombardment in english are relatively few, the most modern of sources do not describe it in detail.XavierGreen (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

    I managed to find an Australian source from 1941 about the battle and used it to add citations to the Battle section, which was previously quite lacking in post war sources.XavierGreen (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support All my comments are now addressed, great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

SupportComments

• I'm assuming the book in the Further reading section is in French - if this is so, it needs to note this using the "language=" parameter.
• Lead, "as much of Scharnhorst's and Gneisenau's ammunition had been depleted by then." Maybe make this a little more explicit and say "had been depleted by the bombardment of Papeete"?
• Battle section, "A French refusal was returned with shelling of the shore batteries and the town by von Spee's ships from a distance of 6,000 m (6,600 yd)." This is somewhat confusing, as you discuss a French refusal and then immediately jump to a German shelling within the same sentence. At first I thought that the French were shelling someone along with refusing to surrender. Perhaps "The French refused, and von Spee's ship began to shell the shore batteries and town from a distance of..."
• Aftermath section, "Effects of the ammunition depleted as a result of the action at Papeete had some effect on". Effects/effect

Overall a nice little article, just a few tweaks needed before I will add my support. Dana boomer (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think all these issues are fixed now.

XavierGreen (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The changes I suggested, plus the others made, look good to me, and so I am adding my support of this article's A-class nomination. Dana boomer (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - a few things I noticed. Carcharoth (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  Support - comments now mostly addressed. Carcharoth (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

  • When I looked at what links here, it looks like most of the links are due to this article being included in Template:Campaignbox Command of the Oceans 1914-1915. Is it possible to work out which articles this article is linked from within the text of the articles, and to consider whether it should or could be linked from more articles?

    It was linked directly in the text of 7 articles and i edited two more so that now nine articles are linked to the Bombardment of Papeete in their texts.XavierGreen (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

  • The start of the article proper is a little bit vague: "When word of war reached Admiral Maximilian von Spee...". It seems to lead on from the lead section, rather than stand alone by itself. Is it possible to give a date here for when "word of war" reached Spee? That would also make it possible to give an idea of how long it takes these ships to steam between islands, and how long it was between each of the events described in the article (especially the first paragraph).
  • The first use of the word "collier" might be usefully explained. To some it will be clear it is a ship. Others will think of collier and be confused. You could link to collier (ship type).

    I added a bluelink to fix thisXavierGreen (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  • The hidden categories are "Unclassified articles missing geocoordinate data" and "All articles needing coordinates". Can this be fixed or the categories removed if they are not needed? I would suggest using the co-ordinates of Papeete, if that is what is normally done for battle articles.

    FixedXavierGreen (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I managed to read the entire article without realising that Papeete was the capital of Tahiti, or even that it was on Tahiti. I had (for some reason) assumed that Papeete was an island in French Polynesia. It would be good to mention Tahiti in the article and link to it. The only mention in the article is here: "The French had no heavy defenses at Papeete but had been warned that von Spee's squadron might raid Tahiti and that a German squadron had been sighted off Samoa." It is not clear from that sentence that Papeete is the capital of Tahiti. I continued to think that Papeete and Tahiti were separate islands (that is what I get for failing to click on "Papeete").

    Papeete is the captial of french polynesia, which was then called French Settlements in Oceania, i have linked to both the territory and the island.

    Thanks. I didn't know that about the official name of the colony at the time. Interesting. Carcharoth (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  • A little bit of context on the history of Papeete could be brought into this article. For example, that it had been settled in 1818, and had grown into a "major regional shipping and transportation center". It would be nice to know what the size and population of Papeete was at the time of this action.

    It was not a major regional shipping center in 1914, it lacked a wireless station and had a garrison of only 45 men (i have added this to the text). I have a figure for the population of the entire island, but for the town alone i do not.XavierGreen (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

    I suppose it depends which region you are talking about. What was the largest garrison at the time in the French Settlements in Oceania (Établissements Français de l'Océanie)? I can well believe it was a colonial backwater compared to some places, but which places in Oceania had wireless stations at that time? It's not a major issue, though, as you've now said it was the capital, so that does indicate that it was one of the major towns in the local area of islands, and the garrison strength is a good figure to have in there as well.Carcharoth (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

    Most of the islands did not have garrisons at all, or if they did were extremely small (Nuka Hiva had only a handful of gendarmes). The major settlements in the pacific tended to have wireless stations or communications cables at this time. Fiji, Hawaii, and Fanning had a cable as well as wireless, Yap, Samoa, and several others had wireless.XavierGreen (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Would a map showing the location of Papeete, and of Tahiti help? Maybe even (really pushing the boat out here) a map showing the route taken by Spee's ships. OK, that is probably not possible, but a map showing all the islands mentioned here (and the dates the ships arrived at each island) would give an idea of the distances being covered here (I presume they spent most of their time at sea trying to avoid being spotted).

    I addeed a map, there is a better one by Corbett that i saw once, but i cannot find it on the net. It was included in a seperate map case that came along with Naval Operations.XavierGreen (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Do you know anything more about Destremeau and whether his actions were considered a success by his commanders? I did a bit of looking and found this account and this book (which you have listed in the 'further reading' section). That book, by a Michel Gasse, looks like something you will need to read to take the article further (which may be a problem if you need to work with French sources - maybe work with the editors of the article on the French Wikipedia?). As for Destremau, I think he wasn't praised that much at first, but got more recognition later, and a posthumous Legion of Honour. But that might be my French translation letting me down..

    He is possibly worthy enough to have his own article though sourcing is difficult, apparently his brother recieved a legion of honor as well. I looked at the second site you cited previously but did not find much of note that was not included in the other sources i have read. As for the account by Destremeau's daughter, it seems a bit to biased towards the french in the language it uses (i read it with google translater) though i did find it useful. The legion of honor business is quite confusing, i read on some message boards (again in french) that he was awarded it in 1908 for a different event and others that it was awarded in 1915. As none of these sources would be reliable on wikipedia and none of the major english works mention the legion of honor at all I cant add it without further verification. The French version of this wikipage is of no help at all as it is simply a vebatum copy of an earlier version of the English Bombardment of Papeete page. As for the Gasse book, another editor placed that there origanally but did not use it to cite anything so i just threw it into the further reading section. Unfortunatly there is no english version and i do not read french :( XavierGreen (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

    Is it possible to add a little bit of context for Destremau in this article, such as the fact that he died the following year? I've put some more details on the article talk page of some things I found about him and other aspects of this (stamps, street names, and a cannon from this engagement still there on display), though again, the sources may be problematic. The one by the French Polynesia History and Geography Association (about the history of the EFO - Établissements Français de l'Océanie - during WWI) might be reliable, though it could equally be a local history society of unknown reliability - I can't tell. What I'm worried about here is that there might be material in the French sources that contradicts the English sources. Someone really needs to assess that at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

    I havent found anything in french that contradicts whats in english. The only element lacking in the english sources are the details specifically about destremau, but this is understandable as the man himself had relatively little impact on the scope of world history though he did have an impact on the history of french polynesia. After looking over several featured articles such as Battle_of_Lissa_(1811), it appears that information about the commanders themselves is not heavily prevelant in the text of the articles, though i agree that some further detail about commemoration of the battle is needed perhaps detailed information on Destremau would better be placed in its own article as von Spee's is?XavierGreen (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

    Fair enough. You are right that the article should be about the battle, not the commanders, and if the English sources don't say whether the French considered the battle a success or not, there is not much you can do about that. I still think for an FA-level article, you would need to assess and use material from French sources, especially as they are more recent (the Gasse book was published last year), but I'll withdraw the objection about source-coverage as far as A-class goes. Carcharoth (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Whether or not you need to have looked at the Gasse book in order to meet A-class criteria, I don't know. I'll leave that up to others to decide. But references to the main French sources on this battle is certainly be something I'd expect in an FA-level article, and if there is extra stuff in the Gasse book, then this article might not be as comprehensive as it could be. Carcharoth (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Just noting here that only my comments about links from other articles, a map, co-ordinates and more dates and timings of the departure and stops along the way before reaching Papeete, remain. If those were dealt with, I'd likely support. Spotted a few more things, but they are mostly minor and I'll add those to the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Following the latest changes (adding of co-ordinates and the map), I'm now supporting promotion to A-class (the stuff about the commemoration on Tahiti, which I raised on the talk page, is not so vital, and can be dealt with after this review, as far as I'm concerned). I did make a few changes to the article, including this recent edit and this one. I hope that is OK (I noticed recently that Good Article reviewers aren't meant to substantially edit the article under review, but not sure about A-class reviews). FWIW, the best description I found of the movements of the ships of Spee's squadron is here (the article on his flagship). Carcharoth (talk) 04:20, 12 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 10:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Maryang San

Nominator(s): Anotherclown (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it is an important topic and meets most if not all of the A class criteria. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I have been involved with working on this article, although my contributions have been limited to fixing typos, dab links, etc. I believe that this article meets the A class criteria. My comments are as follows:
  • No action required:
    • There are no dab links, alt text is present and external links all check out.
    • The article is well referenced and cited, flows logically and is well illustrated with appropriate images;
    • The images are all appropriately licenced, although I think that they might need to be moved to Commons (not sure if this is a requirement, but most or all of them have been tagged for moving);
    • I found no major WP:MOS issues.
  • Action required/suggestions:
    • The abbreviation 3RAR is used in the Background section without having been introduced correctly, i.e. in the lead you could say 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (3RAR);  Done
    • The same as above for other unit abbrievations such as KOSB, KSLI, RNF, etc.;  Done
    • In the Fall of Maryang San, 5 October 1951 section please check the format of "South African Airforce" - should it be "South African Air Force" instead?  Done
    • As per above, I'd suggest moving the images to Commons.
    • Also with the images, you could probably use the PD-Australia licence, (see some of the images on this article here), as although they are appropriately licenced, I think the PD-Australia licence makes things even clearer as to why they a public domain images;  Done
    • Some of the images seem to have their sizes forced (i.e. stipulated as per 200px, etc.), when I think it is usual at ACR for images to be unforced (i.e. use "thumb" without a forced image size), although I'm not sure about this, though;

Anyway, that is my review. Good work in my opinion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate, will have a look at the images but am no expert on Commons. Anotherclown (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with alt text, dab links, or external links. Well Done!
  • You need to use both metric units and standard units for the guns for the benefit of those who think only in one of the two schools of measurement.  Done
  • The company names - A, B, C, D, etc - were they referred to phonically or just be the letter? For example, in the United States, these would be either Able, Baker, Charlie, and David companies or Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, and Delta companies. Was this not the case for the Australians and British?  Not done
  • Make sure you use non breaking spaces between numbers and measurements.  Done TomStar81 (Talk) 15:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tom, thanks for these. In the Australian Army company names are written as they are i.e 'A Company' but said phonetically, i.e. Alpha Company. Ack the rest. Anotherclown (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok I give up... how do I do a non-breaking space in a conversion template? Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

For the conversion templates you do not need to use non-breaking spaces, those are include automatically, but any number and unit combination outside of the template needs non breaking spaces. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I got it sorted now - just used the convert template for everything. Please let me know if I missed one. Thanks again Tom. Anotherclown (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support All my issues have been addressed. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comments: In order to preserve the focus of this article as the "Australian Army's greatest accomplishments during the war", you may want to consider renaming the article to the "First Battle of Maryang San", because the Chinese do talk a lot about the Second Battle of Maryang San as the first time PLA applied modern armor tactics. I'm changing the Chinese title to differentiate between the battles. Jim101 (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)  Done

Yeah that makes sense and I've done that now. Out of curiousity... I assume the Second Battle of Maryang San (from a Chinese perspective) was the fighting a month after the first during which they recaptured the feature from the British? Anotherclown (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Chinese call it the Counterattack at Maliangsan. The Chinese sources basically said the PLA moved up a newly trained company of T-34, rolled over the British, and then started to parade the POWs. Jim101 (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support

• Your weapon sizes need a hyphen as they are adjectives. Don't worry about non-breaking spaces if you're using the convert template. And if you are, use |adj=on in your code to format them properly.  Done
• Watch for NPOV, Chinese blind courage, aggressive Australians, etc.  Done
• Are there any maps available? I got confused as to the relationships between the terrain features.  Done
• You might consider giving the abbreviation in parentheses when spelling out the name for the first time.  Done
• Link the Second battle in the last paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Sturmvogel. Will go over the POV issues and look for maps (I may need to consider a fair use image though - would that be acceptable?). Also there is currently no article for the Second Battle of Maryang San, am hoping to avoid a redlink if that isn't required for the ACR? Anotherclown (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

A fair use image would be fine because otherwise we'll be without. Don't be afraid of redlinks, IMO. That's how articles get written.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Done these now. Anotherclown (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Are there any further suggestions? Unless I'm mistaken I believe that I have responded to or resolved all comments to date, so please let me know if I have missed something. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments - just two quick comments on this excellent article:

• "command of Lieutenant General James Cassels (later Field Marshal Sir James)" - the information in the brackets is basically redundant given that Cassels has his own wikilinked article. Also, I'll have to check up on this, but I'm pretty sure he was a major general at this time not a lieutenant general.  Done

Excellent pick up, I checked my sources again and you are right he was a Major General (which is standard for Div comd anyway, not sure why I did that....argh). Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• "General of the Army Douglas MacArthur's dismissal as Commander-in-Chief" - it should be clarified what MacArthur was C-in-C of (UN forces Korea).  Done

Anyway, well done! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:15, 12 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.

---

• Promoted –Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1942

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I'm nominating this list for A-Class review because I feel it meets the criteria. The layout is identical to List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940–1941, which just passed an A-class review. As always, comments and suggestion are more than welcome. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• According the main contributor tool, you are not the main editor to the article, nor are you anywhere near the top and of contribution. The top contributing user is listed as one Mav (talk · contribs), has he been notified of this ACR? And do you feel you are in a position to guide this article through the ACR process? I ask because as a rule we prefer that the guy(s) or girl(s) that did the most contributing to the nominating since its assumed that they will be the ones most familiar with the article. At the FAC level, this would be consider a drive by nom and thus subject to early closure, but as you are a respected member of the community and the project I will offer a chance for you to answer the questions before I reach any conclusions on whether to close this early or keep it open. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah, Tom? I think there is definately something wrong with the main contributor tool in this case as, if one goes through the article history, MisterBee is easily the primary contributor and there is absolutely no mention of Mav (talk · contribs) in the history. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I have no clue why the tool points to Mav (talk · contribs) as the main contributor. You have to take my word that it was I who created, shaped the layout, wording, content and citations of this article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Well, a look through the article history definitely confirms your position, Bee; it seems that out of the last 500 edits to the page your edits total roughly 400 of those made. I withdraw my above comment concerning the main editors, and will exercise more caution with the tool in the future. At any rate, my comments are as follows:
  • No problems with alt text, dab links or external links. Well Done!
  • I'm unclear about how this principle works on this page, but usually the first instance of the subject matter being discussed is listed in bold text, and I see no such text in the initial intro paragraph. I will not hold this against the article, but I am interested in hearing why there is no bold text here.

This frustrates me! Sorry, but I was instructed before that for a list this doesn't apply, see for instance List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I won't hold this one against you.

• • The intro paragraph has the line "The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was awarded for a wide range of reasons and across all ranks, including to a senior commander for skilled leadership of his troops in battle, or to a low ranking soldier for a single act of extreme gallantry.". As its phrased above the words suggest that you picked to such examples from the awards rather than the range of duties the award could be handed out for. I would suggest rewording to something like "The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was awarded for a wide range of reasons and across all ranks, from a senior commander for skilled leadership of his troops in battle to a low ranking soldier for a single act of extreme gallantry." to fix this problem.

done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• • The part about Hermann Fegelein in the intro seems to have been added as an afterthought; there is no real reason given for the inclusion of the information in this particular part of the article. I would suggest either tying in his inclusion with the 24 questionable medals or omitting him from the intro altogether.

Hm not sure if I agree. Fegelein was the only recipient who had to retire his Oak Leaves on legal grounds (court martial and execution). All the other 24 so called disputed recipients could never have legally received the award. The AKCR claims they have but the records in the German archives tell a different story. Which doesn't mean that they may not have received the award if the war had continued? The Third Reich just ceased to exist and in post war Germany nobody ever followed up on this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I fiddle the with wording to keep the man in the intro and to help clarify the point you were trying to get across. Feel free to revert the edit if you feel it doesn't work.

Thanks sounds good MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Do any of the enactments listed in the background section have articles here? As legislation I would think they wold be of high enough importance to warrant inclusion here, hence the question.

Well sort of! If you look at the article Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, my part time hobby, you will see how the Knight’s Cross is legally architected. At least that is what I am trying to achieve over time. Please note that I am trying to establish some uniform layout for all of the Oak Leave recipients here. Previous reviewers had always asked me to establish a minimal historic background. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• • The images for the men who won the award seem to be hit and miss, can you work on seeing about getting more images into the article? I know there will always be some that simply must go image less, but it seems to me that about half the list is without visuals, and that concerns me. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The images are indeed hit and miss. To my knowledge "Non-free media use rationale" does not allow me to use such pictures on lists. I have included every picture I could find that has appropriate licensing. If I missed one then it was not intentional. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Whose copyright laws are being considered for the article? If its US then I think our copyright policy states that you should be able to upload a copyrighted image on grounds that there is no way a free use variant can be found (these guys are by and large dead), but I need to check on that to be sure. If its German copyright law then I have no idea what to suggest. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So far I use pictures from Commons:Bundesarchiv and those that are public domain in the United States.

MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK you can fair use photos of everybody lacking one as they're not replaceable by a free image.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I'd feel better if we had all the images, but at this point the article is complete as it can be without them, so I lend my support. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Not sure what all the differences are between Featured list and A-class list criteria but I see no reason not to support it. I do have a few things, most of them minor, that I noticed that may be a factor for FL.
• There are several articles that need to be created and currently have red links.

in progressMisterBee1966 (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• The cells lacking images or with no data should have a dash.

doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think the date of award column should be sortable
• Some references have a comma after the name (ie 3, 8, 12, etc) but most do not, I think they should be consistent

done MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if 144 (starts with Hyazinth) is sorting correctly.

His last name starts with Strachwitz, I think it sorts correctly MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I recommend making the date format consistent throughout the article. In the table you have dd mmm yyyy and references 4-7 use yyyy-mm-dd.

done MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• There has been some debate recently about how to state references so you may hear something at some point about specific and general categories under references being confusing. Not an issue for me per sey, just a heads up

Thats all I have. Other than these things the list looks good to me. --Kumioko (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Support

Mild curiosity why not any citations from Obermaier? He's the guy I normally see cited for these sorts of things.

Obermaier? Why? He is an expert on the Luftwaffe. With respect to the Knight's Cross recipients two sources clearly distinguish themselves, these are Fellgiebel and Scherzer. Fellgiebel continued what von Seaman had started with in the 60ties. I personally now of no better references than these two. All other sources I have come across are derivatives of these. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Conditional Support

• As usual, a good job at pulling this together. I have a single concern. You've varied from your usual citation and source presentation style in this article, by using categories of "Specific" and "General" (you used to use Citations and Sources or References or some such nomenclature). See, for example, Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. I'm curious as to why you've done this? I'd recommend keeping the style consistent for the project. Also, your General (References) list does not include the Pdf citation ( what does ALEX stand for? ) nor do you actually cite Fraschka, Günther (1994) in your citations list. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Carelessness no reason here. I changed it. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support, with one minor comment: why do you link Knight's Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords, and Diamonds in the Background section, but not any other grades? You've already linked to it in the lead. – Joe N 22:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

fixedMisterBee1966 (talk) 23:06, 10 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.

---

Nguyen Van Nhung

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (bananabucket)

Previous review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nguyen Van Nhung/archive1

Managed to scrape out a few odds and ends about this obscure officer, so I'm back YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with alt text, external links, or dab text. Well Done!
  • Work a little on your intro, I'd like to have at least two paragraphs rather than one big paragraph. Also, could we get an infobox for the person in question up in the article? I think that would help. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I'm happy. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• 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. Yes

• 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. Yes

• 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.Yes

• 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. Yes

• A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate. 'Yes

Support - looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments -- I recall passing this fine article for GA a year ago, and most the work since then has only improved it through additional detail. Couple of things:

• They speculated that Nhung committed suicide to avoid having to live to see Minh being demoted or humiliated. Do I assume that "they" is the journos mentioned in the previous sentence? If so, might do to clarify by substituting "Newspapers" or "The media" for "They"...
  • Heh, good thing I asked since it wasn't the journos that were meant at all...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Nhung’s death was never formally solved. reads oddly to me. It seems to cry out for "murder" to be substituted for "death". Is that what you mean or is there a remote possibility that he really did top himself, in which case you can't be so definitive? If that's the case, I'd reword to The circumstances of Nhung’s death have never been officially confirmed (or ...formally resolved) or something like that.
  • Tks for mod, I just tweaked a tiny bit more. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Other than this the structure, perspective, referencing, and illustration remain of a high standard and I look forward to supporting when these minor points are resolved. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:29, 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.

---

Henry George Chauvel

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... Harry Chauvel was the most senior Australian general of the Great War. Seemed like a logical place to start improving the Great War articles. He also played a part in many other national events such as the 1891 Australian shearers' strike and the Black Friday Bushfires of 1939. Comments welcome. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Your images need alt text. More to follow. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Somebody should fix it so it can be taken from the photo page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments on lead and refs

• The lead is too long. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a maximum of four paragraphs. It could also do with a copyedit, as there are a few prose issues.
  • Reduced to four paragraphs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• There is some overlinking in the lead. e.g. general, lieutenant general, First Australian Imperial Force.
  • Done. 10:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Ranks are not proper nouns and should not be capitalised unless attached to a name.
  • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• There is inconsistency in that both First World War and Great War are used.
  • I heard that consistency causes OCD in rats. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• "an astonishing 167 km in just three days" - the use of "astonishing" is POV.
  • No it isn't. It is WP:PEA.
• Why isn't it mentione din the lead that Chauvel was CGS?
  • Didn't think it was worth mentioning. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Cite #97 is without an access date and is not correctly formatted.
  • It's a standard template. Added accessdate. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• There is inconsistency in the capitalisation of "retrieved" in regards to access dates.
  • Two different standard templates. We can asked for one to be changed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Does Hill 1978 have an ISBN? If so, it needs to be added.
  • Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Is Chauvel mentioned in the Official History of Australia in the War of 1939–1945?
  • Yes, in Long, To Benghazi, pp. 5-6, 9-11, 13-14 and 26. This is about the Army in the 1920s. McCarthy, South West Pacific Area — First Year: Kokoda to Wau, mentions his role as Inspector in Chief of the VDC on p. 3.
• As an aside, there are several good photos of Chauvel just prior to the Second World War and during the conflict, some of which could liven up the "Later life" section. For example [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] I believe there are also some images in the AWM collection that were taken during his funeral.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • One image is still missing alt text.
    • Done. Sigh. I hate pictures and alt text makes them even worse. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Some of your sentences read ackwardly, which leads me to believe that the article could do with a copyedit.
    • Ian had a go. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Only the lead so far, but will continue in due course... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • In the last paragraph before the later life section you've got a couple of ships with names but no links; if we have articles for the vessels here I would suggest linking to them in the article.
    • If we had articles, I would link them, both here in in the other articles which refer to the same ships. Unfortunately, we have no articles for these vessels. Update: someone started an article on HMAT Wandilla. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

TomStar81 (Talk) 00:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Tentative Support Still waiting on the rest of the copyedit, but so far the rest seems to have been addressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Full Support TomStar81 (Talk) 13:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comments -- Okay, finished my usual light copyedit. I think the article always read quite well, nicely structured and illustrated, but there were too many unnecessary links and a few other little things here and there to be tidied up; anyway that's done. For the rest:
  • Although the images are well-chosen and placed, almost all are too small to be satisfactorily viewed without clicking to open in their own window, which shouldn't be necessary. There's no longer a MOS requirement to be stuck with tiny thumbnails, so I'd recommend increasing the size of all except the 1902 portrait and maybe the Monash Valley one.
    • Done. Looks great on my 2560 x 1600 monitor. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • One bit of prose I didn't touch but might be improved: He attempted to maintain an increasingly hollow structure in place in the face of short-sighted politicians intent on cutting expenditure. When I read attempted to maintain the first time it sounded like he was trying to perpetuate the structure when in fact I'm sure he didn't want it but had no choice. Might be better expressed as He was forced to maintain an increasingly hollow structure in place in the face of short-sighted politicians intent on cutting expenditure. (lead and last section).
    • Done. Re-written. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the popular media stuff is fair for Chauvel but the info should be included in the new legacy subsection rather than in a section of its own. Also, while the IMDB may be acceptable as a source for simply listing films, it isn't reliable for an assertion that Lawrence's Seven Pillers presented a "wildly inaccurate" portrait of Chauvel. If it was inaccurate, that should be sourced elsewhere, and a bit more detail on why/how it was inaccurate should be included.
    • Oops. Reference missing there. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Yep, that's good but still believe we should have a bit more info on how/why it was "wildly inaccurate" if we're going to use such a strong assertion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not an expert on Chauvel but I'd have expected a few more references for such a significant figure - are there no other biographies or encyclopedic articles (e.g. from the Oxford Companion) that might provide some additional insight? I'm not saying the article lacks the requisite detail but am just trying to ensure we have a well-rounded picture from a wide range of sources. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
    • There are no other biographies or encyclopedic articles but I can provide some more references. (Also, there is a ref missing.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I think your citing to the existing refs is fine, just that the range of the refs seems a bit narrow. If there are no other full-length bios that's fair enough, and since you've already got the entry from The Commanders I s'pose the only other one that comes to mind is from the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History - nothing original or worthwhile there? I'm just conscious of the fact that of the eight main refs (the books plus ADBonline), Bean and Hill are responsible for six of them... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Do you like the Owen gun pic? I think it looks right out of Dad's Army. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Heh, yeah it's great isn't it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Previous reviews seem to have found and corrected all the issues with it. – Joe N 19:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I believe that this meets the criteria. Well done in my opinion. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. Anotherclown (talk) 10:26, 9 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 02:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Taejon

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!^(talk) 19:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems with alt text, external links, or dab links. Well Done!
  • Major General currently links to the common term, but there is a US specific page for the rank, may I recommend linking to it instead?
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 01:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm uncertain as to whether this counts as a breach of Mos, but on at least one occasion I spotted a number unit (like "24th infantry division") leading a sentence. The issue here is that sentences should not start with a numerical number, that number should be spelled out, but I am not sure if "Twenty-fourth infantry division" is correct usage of the term under the circumstances. For the sake of the MoS I would suggest going with the later, but I will not hold this against you should you decide to disregard the suggestion.
    • Reworded that sentence. —Ed!^(talk) 01:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • On the matter of North Korean Casualties; were any papers or communiques intercepted that would suggest a number KIA/MIA? Perhaps CIA assets or something of that nature were used to estimate a loss for the North Koreans, but such a source would not be immediately available. Just a thought.
    • I've done a lot of looking, and I can't seem to locate any sources on North Korean losses. Are there any sources you can think of that would help? —Ed!^(talk) 01:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • No mention is made as to whether the North Koreans ever figured out Dean was general. I find it hard to believe he spent all that time in hostile hands and no one ever deduced the meaning the stars on his uniform. Can you see if his rank was eventually made known to the NKs, and if not, can you note that in the article?
    • Clarified that part. —Ed!^(talk) 01:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Otherwise it looks good to me. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I have responded to all of your criticisms. —Ed!^(talk) 01:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Well Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• 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. Yes

• 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. Mostly Yes

Use of words such as 'enemy' should be avoided.

• 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. Yes

• 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. Mostly Yes

The prose is repetative in places and could probably do with a copy edit. E.g. over use of the phrase 'pushed back', '3.5 inch bazookas' etc.

In some places the paragraphs seem a little too long and could probably be broken into two

• A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate. Yes

Anyway thats it from me for now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been a little bold and made some of these changes myself, so please have a look and make any changes you think are necessary if I have done something you're not happy with. However, with a bit of a copy edit I will add my support. Good work so far. Anotherclown (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edits were very helpful. I have performed a copy edit of my own, as well. How does it look now? —Ed!^(talk) 14:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I've done a little bit more copy-editting and it looks good to me now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support: overall a very good article in my opinion. I just have one comment: please check your date format. There is some inconsistency, I think. For instance, in the infobox you use "Month Day, Year", but in the Aftermath section there is an example of "Day Month Year", e.g 20 July in the first sentence of that section. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:59, 6 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 23:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No. 1 Wing RAAF

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

I would like to nominate this article on one of the Royal Australia Air Force's best known units of World War II for A class status. I think that I've consulted all the in-depth references on this subject and would like to acknowledge Auntieruth55's great comments and edits. I'm interested in eventually nominating this article for FA status, so any suggestions for improvements would be fantastic. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• No. 1 Wing traces its trace its lineage back to No. 1 Wing AFC, which served in the UK in 1917-18. In those days it comprised Nos 5,6,7 and 8 Squadrons, in the training role. It was reformed at Laverton in 1922 with Nos 1 and 2 Squadrons.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - do you have a source for that so it can be included in the article? Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Parnell, N. M.; Lynch, C. A. (1976). Australian Air Force since 1911. Terry Hills, New South Wales: A. H. & A. W. Reed. ISBN 0 589 07153 X., pp. 9, 42

• Thanks for that. I've started work on a new section covering the first incarnations of the wing at User:Nick-D/Drafts8 Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• I can't find any record of No. 1 Wing being reformed in the 1920s - while both Parnell and Lynch and Gillison state that it was proposed to form this unit, there are no subsequent references to it (or any other wings) in these books or Chris Coulthord-Clark's book The Third Brother, including in listings of the RAAF's order of battle - these show the flying squadrons as being under the command of air stations rather than wings. Do you have any references to the unit's establishment? Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've never heard of such a formation at that time either. In any case, unlikely it was established at Laverton in 1922 - the base didn't open until 1925 (same year as Richmond)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Guess it was not formed. :( The WWI No. 1 Wing definitely existed though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've added the material on the 1st Wing AFC and the proposal to reestablish No. 1 Wing in the 1920s - what do you think? Nick-D (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with external links, dab links, or alt text. Well done!
  • Which commonwealth units were in Egypt? The article says only that spitfires were sent there as reinforcements, but makes no mention as to the units they were reinforcing.
    • Mainly No. 92 Squadron RAF - I've just added this to the article (thank you Google books!)
  • For that matter, why the late start? In 1942 WWII was well underway; its seems to me that the request for planes could have come a little earlier. Was there a sudden pressing need for the planes in 1942 as opposed to 1941 or 1940?
    • Yes; northern Australia was being regularly bombed and the Australian Government was concerned that it didn't have sufficient air defence units. I need to add coverage of the war to this point as suggested by Yellow Monkey below - I'll add a note here when that's done
      • OK, I've added a couple of paras summarising the air war over northern Australia prior to No. 1 Wing's arrival in the area; I don't want go into too much detail, however, as this is an article on the unit rather than the campaign. Is this level of coverage adequate? Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Was there some significance in the code names selected by the Australian Government? I known in WWI that the tanks were so named because they were said to resemble water tanks and the name just stuck. Was there a similar principle at work here?
    • Not according to the sources - the aircraft were code named after a brand of cigarettes
  • What set the "tropicalised variants" apart from there non-tropicalised variants?
    • I'll look into this
    • They removed the de-icing equipment. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
      • The references I consulted said that the addition of an air filter to the nose of the aircraft was the main difference - I've added this to the article. Nick-D (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "...attended by H.V. Evatt..." What does H.V. stand for? Was that a part of the guys name or was it like a title (IE a rank for knight or something of that nature). Also, see if we have a link for air vice Marshall.
    • 'Herbert Vere'. He was normally called 'H.V.' though, so that's what I've used here. I think that linking the ranks might be over-linking.
      • Actually, he was normally called "Doc". Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Yep, I think you could afford to say H.V. ("Doc") Evatt here, Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Re. possible overlinking, I'm starting to drop links that automatically go with other links and you might consider the same. For instance, do we need to link Prime Minister with Winston Churchill? By all means include his title here but the link probably isn't necessary. Linking a rank to a person with an article may also not be so necessary. Likewise separate links of a state following a city, e.g. Darwin, Northern Territory. Simply writing Darwin, Northern Territory should be enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
          • OK - I agree, and I've made this change. Nick-D (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "The fighter squadrons' air parties arrived at Darwin later that month; on 17 January No. 54 Squadron's air party reached RAAF Station Darwin and No. 452 Squadron's arrived at Batchelor Airfield and No. 457 Squadron began operating from Livingstone Airfield on 31 January." This sentence reads funny, its got too many instances of the word "and" for one thing. See if you can reword it.
    • Will do
      • I've just re-written this sentence. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Do any of the aerial battles mentioned in the article have names or articles here? If they have articles here I would suggest linking to them, if they have names I would suggest a limited number of red links for the significant battles be placed in the article.
    • No, there aren't any at present. I'm planning an article on the 2 May battle, and have added a red link to this, but I'm not sure if any of the others are particularly notable (the 20 June one might be, but I don't think it warrants a red link).
  • Why wasn't a more serious effort made to move the men forward in 44/45? The article touches on this, but doesn't exactly state what the reason was for the squad no being moved to a more active area, and I'm curious to know if anything has come up over the years that would shed some light on that mystery. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    • It appears to have been due to concerns over a renewed offensive against Darwin in 1944 and lethargy in 1945. I'll see if I can find some references for 1944. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    • By late 1944 RAAF fighter squadrons in SWPA were complaining of under-employment. For this reason, No. 451 Squadron was sent from France to the UK instead of being returned to Australia in November 1944. (Herington, p. 257) Shipping, however, was in short supply, and the queue of men and equipment awaiting shipment to and from Bougainville became quite long. Under the circumstances it made no sense to ship units that were not urgently required. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Indeed - by that stage of the war the entire RAAF had been effectively sidelined, and it had no real need for any short range fighter units. Nick-D (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support My issues have been addressed. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Tom Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Comment The amount of people who wouldn't know even a little background would be few, but I think it should be pointed out in the main body, teh outbreak of WWII and the Japanese advance through SE Asia in 1941, else someone who has just walked out of a cave wouldn't know the reason for Australia arming herself YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks - I'll add some brief background material on this. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I've added some material on this, though as I note above I don't want go into too great a level of detail. Is this adequate? Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments -- Already impressed by the level of detail in this article given the sad lack of any dedicated history of this or any other RAAF wing. Performed my usual light copyedit and made a couple of responses to others' comments above, here are some more:
  • A minor point but I think 'Churchill Wing' works better with double quotes, that's how we generally do nicknames in my experience.
    • Done
  • My RAAF Richmond history states that No. 1 Wing departed for Darwin from 31 Dec 42 to 25 Jan 43. Given your concern expressed elsewhere of possible over-reliance on Alexander, you could substitute this citation for one of hers. Page ref is p.122, book details are Roylance, Derek (1991). Air Base Richmond. RAAF Base Richmond: Royal Australian Air Force. ISBN 0646052128. OCLC 38319745. I'd be happy to add a few more details from Roylance (like the number of accidents they had training at Richmond) and substitute more citations from his book for Alexander, if you like.
    • More details would be great, but could you please leave the Alexander reference where the information is the same? - her book is more recent and was produced independently of the RAAF
      • Done - tweak as desired. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Another minor point but, as per my ce, I think you generally need a few more commas when beginning sentences with timeframes, e.g. In late July No. 1 Wing's headquarters... seems to work better as In late July, No. 1 Wing's headquarters... Perhaps have a scan throughout... More later! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Will do - thanks for the comments so far Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Done, I think Nick-D (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Additional cmts following my recent edits:
    • The illustrations are well-chosen and -placed but most really should be increased in size so they don't need to be opened in their own window to see reasonable detail; this is quite permissible now. The worst offender is the two Spits taking off; I couldn't even make out the second one for a while and my eyes aren't that bad... ;-)
    • Is "pagent" a typo on your behalf or Bladin's?!
    • Not sure we need the references spaced by a line... Aside from these last, it looks pretty damn good to me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
      • All done - the images have been increased to 250px, the typo fixed (it was mine) and separations between the references removed. Thanks for the RAAF Base Richmond refs. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Great, full support and congrats again on a fine piece of work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 5 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.

---

• Closed as Promoted - Cam ^(Chat) 05:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Red Tail Project

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it just passed WP:GA, but I could still use further advice for improving the article. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Your images need alt text. A disturbing number of your external links are highlighted, please check and advise on the status of the links. There are two disambiguation links in the article, please locate them and if at all possible remove them.
    • I have resolved the WP:ALT Text and disambiguation links. The links are highlighted because they are from a news retrieval service. They should all be visible to all readers, AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Your history section is a little thin; I'd like to see some information about when the CAF was founded a little about the plane they are restoring. In the case of the former,who founded the CAF, when it was founded, and where the group is based would be nice. In the case of the latter, a little about the plane's production number, assembly point, combat history, and post war status would be nice.
    • For that matter, I think the provenance section at the bottom of the page should be moved to the top of the page. That solves most of the above noted issues I have.
      • Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "In 2007 Gerry Beck, one of the primary restorers, was in an aviation collision of a P-51A and a P-51D during AirVenture 2007. Nonetheless, the rebuilding continued with the mounting of the engine in 2008 and the mating of the wing in 2009." Why do we need to know this? It doesn't really add anything to article, so I would suggest removing it.
    • Much of the press that this plane has received mentions the death of either Don Hinz or Gerry Beck. Thus, this article mentions both. We are a tertiary resource serving to summarize the extant secondary resources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "...the group plans to add a mobile exhibition in the form of a 53-foot (16 m) trailer." If I recall correctly, 53-feet is the legal limit for a trailer towed by a commercial vehicle - put simply, a tractor-trailer trailer. Perhaps you should note that in the article, while I can not speak for everyone, but when I think about trailer, I think about something pulled by a pickup truck, not a semi-truck.
    • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you logo could do with some shrinking, it seems a little large. We try to keep them around 300px or so if the image is fair use, although my memory on this point is admittedly hazy. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I did not download this logo and claim fair use. I got it from the same person who provided the three images. I.E., this is the size the organization sent me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support Thanks for the fast replies. All is in order. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - The two items listed in the Reference section don't seem to be books:

1. Red Tail: Rising Above Adversity To Fly Again. Commemorative Air Force.

   This was a coffee table book that did not have an ISBN. I will ask my sister how she obtained it and whether members of the public could do so as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

2. Ross, Stan and Cindy Bergquiat (2006). Thatcher, Janese and Darlene Dahlseide. ed. Don Hinz and the Red Tail Project. Office of Aeronautics, Minnesota Department of Transportation.

   This is findable by the public. You could surely contact MDOT. No ISBN either though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To be worth including in a reference section, I think the items should be findable by the public, i.e. should be real publications. Either orderable from a bookstore or findable in a library. Neither of these two has an ISBN or an OCLC number. So I'd suggest either dropping these, or trying to replace them from one of the reference lists you can find online, such as the one at http://www.redtail.org/education/resources.html. Some of the items listed there may be real books and might show up in worldcat.org. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

These books can be found at http://www.redtail.org/cgi-bin/store.cgi?category=books . Even if they do not have ISBNs, they are readily available to the public.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments. I have some issues with the prose and logic. Once these and punctuation variations, etc., are addressed, I'll be happy to support. Pls see below. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Lead. The first sentence is confusing, leads away from the topic, and too long. The whole lead seems too short. It also contains information both not relevant to the article or which is not mentioned again. The Tuskegee Airmen controversy is irrelevant to this article, although the Tuskegee Airmen themselves are not.

   The Red Tail Project is an organization that originally focused on the restoration of a P-51 Mustang and now focuses on exhibiting the aircraft as a tribute to the Tuskegee Airmen, all of whom were African-American.[2] The 332d Fighter Group, composed of the 99th, 100th, 301st and 302nd Fighter Squadrons, were known as the Red Tails because of the distinctive red paint on their planes.[3] Although the black pilots were originally shunned in the white military, they eventually earned the right to fly combat missions. Although it has been claimed that they had a perfect record in their 15,000 missions as bomber escorts,[4][5] it was recently revealed that they lost 25 bombers.[6] Fundraising for various stages of the restoration project has been ongoing since the 1990s.[7] The project's efforts have been chronicled in two documentary films....  ??

   Extraneous info that doesn't relate to the article, or that you don't mention again. Maybe: The Red Tail Project, part of the non-profit Commemorative Air Force, promotes the restoration and exhibition of the World War II era P-51 Mustang as a tribute to the 332d Fighter Group, also known as the Tuskegee Airmen. (new para) The all African American 332d Fighter Group originally flew 15,000 missions as bomber escorts in the Mustang; eventually, the Airmen acquired the right to fly combat missions. In 1970, the Commemorative Air Force acquired an original P-51 to include in their educational program. In 1980, Don Hinz took charge of the plane's restoration, and developed the idea of the Red Tail Project, named for the distinctive red paint on the Airmen's craft. Originally conceived as a restoration project, Red Tail evolved into an education program. Although the P-51 was restored, mechanical failure caused a crash and the death of the pilot; the Tuskegee Airmen, Inc. (commemoration? re-enactment?) took over the plane's second restoration, and the newly-restored P-51 made its debut at AirVenture 2009 in Oshkosh, Minnesota. Since 2005, the Red Tail project has raised over $2 million (US) for the aircraft's maintenance and associated education programs, and the plane has been featured in two documentary films.

   I have followed most of this advice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

2. After the lead, you probably need a paragraph on the Tuskegee Airmen generally.

   The Tuskegee Airmen (pronounced /tʌˈskiːɡi/) is the popular name of a group of African American pilots who fought in World War II as the 332nd Fighter Group of the US Army Air Corps. This was the first unit of African American military aviators in the United States armed forces. During World War II, African Americans in many U.S. states were still subject to Jim Crow laws and the American military itself was racially segregated. The Tuskegee Airmen were subject to racial discrimination, both within and outside the Army, which prevented the Airmen from flying combat missions. Despite their adversities, the Tuskegee Airmen flew with distinction. In 2007, 350 Tuskegee Airmen and their widows received the Congressional Gold Medal (Library of Congress. Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used on 29 March 2007, for a ceremony to award a Congressional... (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate), March 7, 2007; Evans, Ben. "Tuskegee Airmen awarded Congressional Gold Medal." Associated Press, March 30, 2007. Retrieved: 30 April 2007.) The airfield where they trained has been designated as a national historic site ( Official NPS website: Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site).

   I have made most of these changes, but I had a little trouble interpreting the suggested citations. If you have a chance please correct my interpretation or offer advice.

   those are cites from the Tuskegee Airmen article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

3. then the provenance ....the plane was taxied around the campus as a late 1940s drunken prank  ? in a prank, drunken students taxied the plane around the campus in the late 1940s...

   Prompt removal required that the wings be sawed off with a Skil saw in order that the plane could be towed to Billings, Montana where the wings were re-welded. Skil saw? isn't that a brand name? Should not it be simply circular saw? To move the plane from its hangar and tow it the x mountainous miles to Billings necessitated the removal of the wings, which were sawed off with a circular saw. When the plane arrived in Billings, the wings were reattached to the fuselage.

4. :the wings were rewelded to what? How about the wings were rewelded to the fuselage?

   O.K. How is that.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

5. that the storm was not Hurricane Beulah really isn't important, except to refute the documentary. What storm was it?

   I don't have any other souce to augment this storyline.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

6. what makes IMDB a reliable source?

   I state the source clearly so the reader can draw his own inferences.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

7. Commemorative Air Force is linked in the history section, but not at its first mention in the Provenance section.

   It is now linked only in the WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

8. In Fundraising, repeat the name of the project. It didn't set about raising, it adopted a fund raising goal of

   you also refer to several strategies, but you only list one. And then you move to the documentary. Was the documentary a fund raising strategy? Or was it used on PBS as a fundraiser during Black History Month? I don't understand.

   This is still unclear. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

   This section needs greater clarity. It starts with fund raising, leaps to Black history month and the documentary, and back to fund raising. The connection between the documentary and the fund raising is not clear. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   Organization is not my strong point. Would you care to take a stab at rearranging it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

9. More on the documentary?

   I don't understand this point. The documentary has its own article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   That may be, but the documentary is jumbled into the fund raising section, and it deserves better space. Questions: is the documentary a fund raising effort, or something else? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   In some sources the director has claimed his motivation was to heighten awareness of the fundraising efforts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

10. 2004 crash....I originally wondered if that was a plane crash...

    Added adjective.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

11. Who is Don Hinz? He got involved and something was born.  ???? This is really too vague.

    From what I can tell, he was just a guy who hung out at the hanger the plane was at in its early restoration stages. He was a pilot though. I don't know how much more you want in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

    he was clearly not just a guy. Donald Hinz, US Navy, Commander, Retired. His son was killed in Iraq and there is a lot more on Don Hinz: See here, and here. He was a Commander in the USNavy (Retired). Look int he newspaper of his hometown...Woodbury (Wisconsin or Minnesota, I don't remember). There will be an obituary. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

    It looks like you have already addressed this point without striking it. What is the remaining issue?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

12. You need to change the text of the article in note 28 to "FORT LAUDERDALE TUSKEGEE AIRMEN TO ADDRESS STUDENTS". The Miami Herald. 2007-01-13. p. 2B. Retrieved 2009-12-26. As it is now, with 3 accused in killing face lineup, it makes no sense for this article.

    That is the headline that databases would use. The purpose of a citation is to help the reader find the source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

    It is still linking to the same place, just indicating there is another article on the page. It needs to be clearer that the reader should scroll to the proper article. Furthermore, it sticks out like a sore thumb in your bib, and looks out of place. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

    I do not believe it is a different article, but rather it is a subheading of the same article, which is why it does not show up under its own heading.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Would you please Strike resolved issues above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made some tweaks and general ce to smooth out some of the prose. See if it meets your approval. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I like most of the edits. I do not like having a single-sentence paragraph in the WP:LEAD, however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

no prob. See if this works for you. Also, is there a picture available of Jug Turner? And, what is so special about the P51C? (as opposed to the D or the B). why is it more difficult to find? fewer made, more used and shot down? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I am not really a plane buff, but hearing these Red Tail Project guys talk, it as if the different models of P51 are different planes. It might be like talking to computer people about windows XP, Vista, and Seven or as software version 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0. Features are different on the different models. I do not see the differences in the sources I have used how ever.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Moderate Support. the article now is better organized and informative. it may be that the information out there is just itself skimpy. I would have preferred to read some reason why the C version is better than the B or the D, for example, and perhaps what made this plane special (who flew it, etc.) (more about the plane). Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Support.

• The lead is somewhat unclear: how many planes do they have? It uses the plural, and then talks about one like it is the only one.

• I have fixed this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Better. – Joe N 18:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• In the Provenance section you say that it was shuffled between various CAF bases, and in the History section you say several groups participated in the restoration. Please clarify.

• I think these thoughts are now better coordinated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Makes sense now. – Joe N 18:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• "In 2007 Gerry Beck, one of the primary restorers, was in an aviation collision of a P-51A and a P-51D during AirVenture 2007." Did he die? How did this set back the effort?

• Did that suffice?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. – Joe N 18:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article, but I think it needs some work. A thorough copy-edit would be in order as there are a few other places where the text might be tightened a bit or the order shuffled to increase readability. – Joe N 22:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good now, thanks.

---

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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 06:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940–1941

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am seeking more formal feedback on this list of Oak Leaves recipients of the year 1940. This particular list is part of a larger list that I have broken down into collection of lists for the years 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945. The main reason for breaking it down was the size of 882 listings could not be handled easily with acceptable load times. Thus breaking the list down into the different years made it logical and manageable (at least to me, you may feel differently of course). Moving forward, I want to bring all six lists to the same quality level as the list of 1940. I have to acknowledge that the size of the 1940 list, with seven listings, is quite small and may not meet the criteria for A-class. However I do ask the reviewers to judge this in context of the larger collection of all 882 recipients of the Oak Leaves. Thus if the reviewers oppose A-class based on size of this list, I do want to ask for recommendations on alternative groupings that are logical and symmetrical in nature. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comment/leaning oppose. I agree that it was wise to split the giant list into separate groupings, and also agree that year-wise was probably the best way to do so. However, as I stated in this article's peer review I do not think that with such a small number of entrants that this truely qualifies as a list. As I also stated in the peer review, I would recommend that this list and List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1941 be combined to form List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940–1941, which would create a rather decent sized list and one that could merit A-Class and possibly FLC. I believe the merger of the two lists is rather logical given that both these lists are noticably smaller than the preceeding lists. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with aboveSupport this is too short on its own (and of course in the other format it was too long). A happy medium, in line with Abraham's proposal, would be more effective. The load times on the first incarnation were appalling, and this is too short (10 entrants?). I think if you add the years together, this will make it manageable in terms of size, and reasonable in terms of comprehensiveness. BTW, I do like the format, however, with the person's name and a picture, etc. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment assuming that the merge is the way to proceed. Would it be okay to retain the "Recipients of 194X" subsections? This would make jumping into the respective year via the navigation template still possible. MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yep, I think that is a good idea. Also, re-direct the old lists into the new one. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• yes, I agree with that. With the subsections, it will be more manageable, and the entire list a better size. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• By popular demand I merged the 1940 and 1941 list. Please have a look if this now meets your expectations. Do note that the navigation template in the upper right hand corner no longer highlights (in bold) the respective article it is in. I don't know how to fix this. Please also have a look if the column width for the two tables are aligned, they are okay on my browser. To be honest, I liked the old two article layout (one per year) better. What happens next? Do I have to withdraw this A-Class review now and replace by a new one? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't line up on mine. As far as I'm concerned you don't have to withdraw and reapply. But I have no power here. ;) I think the single year article would be a good idea, except it becomes very short. Is it going to become unmanageably long when the other years are added? Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the bolding issue in the template. I tweaked it so it displays as "1940–1941", instead of two single lists; I think this was part of the problem. Within the template there were two links to the same page, but they led to specific sections in the list rather than to just the list in general. The columns all align on my screne, but do remember it is not a major issue if they do not. Also, I agree that the single lists for these two years was better in principal, but there were not enough entrants to support this. However, I would advise against the combination of any additional lists in the Oakleaves year series, as all of the other lists do have enough entrants to support a single article. Keep this review open; I will move the review page to reflect the new article name. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I did not find any ambiguous links in the article, but your lead image needs alt text. A to changing page names during an ACR: no, no withdrawl is nessicary; however, you do need to change the page name listed in the FAC toolbox. Otherwise, the autmotic scrpts loaded to check for the alt text and all that will report back to a reviewer that no such page exists, and that can thow a guy for a loop :) TomStar81 (Talk) 17:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks! I added an alt text. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose for now Most of the list part with the recipients contains no citations, and I would like to see each individual listed in the tables to be credited with at least one site in a manner similar to what appears at List of battlecruisers of Germany. Its got potential, it just needs a little more tlc before recieving an A from me :) TomStar81 (Talk) 19:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• done I cited the entire unit column. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support That is much better. Thanks for the swift reply. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I think that merging 1940 and 1941 has resulted in a list of a good size. – Joe N 18:21, 29 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.

---

HMS Lion (1910)

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I believe that it meets all the requirements.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

SupportComments

• The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this length (>30kb), WP:LEAD recommends three to four paragraphs.
  • True, but that's a real problem when the bulk of the article consists of a description of the ship and of the battles that she participated in. Nothing that lends itself to more than a sentence or two of summary. Do you have any concrete suggestions?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article. It currently doesn't mention anything about the design of the ship and skips very lightly over the description of the battles, which make up the bulk of the article. If I were writing the article, I would devote one paragraph to summarizing the design information, one to the service section up through the Battle of Dogger Bank and a third to the Battle of Jutland through scrapping. Dana boomer (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I've expanded the lead. Most of the FA German battlecruiser articles now have a lead about what it is now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Lead, "except when she was refitting or under repair." The ship cannot refit herself, so "being refitted" or something along those lines would probably be a better word choice.
  • Done.
• Propulsion, "These were her second set of propellers as the original propellers had been judged unsatisfactory after preliminary engine trials in January 1912." Any idea why they were judged unsatisfactory? Too small, not strong enough, etc.?
  • Roberts' account is kind of confusing. She actually ran her 1912 trials with the larger-area propellers which were not particularly satisfactory as propulsive efficiency was 43.5% and she only made 27.623 knots despite forcing the machinery to 76623 shp. The older BCs had efficiency ratings around 50%, so she was fitted with the smaller-area propellers originally intended for her, which proved to be even less-efficient. So the larger-area ones were reinstalled. The DNC believed that her rough bottom cost her .8 knots and didn't worry about it any further. All a bit more detail than is really necessary so maybe I'll just take that sentence out entirely.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• Propulsion. The first linking of shaft horse power should be moved to the first instance of the term.
  • Done
• Armament, "added in January 1915 and another the following July 1915." I don't think you need the second 1915.
  • I agree.

Overall, the article looks quite good. I look forward to supporting when these issues have been addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. I have changed to a support. Dana boomer (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems with external links or alt text. Two dab links are reported to be present in the article, please locate and if at all possible remove these links. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Done.
  • In the armor section you note that more armor was added after the bad experinces at jutland. Did the extra armour added after the battle of jutland compromise any of the battlecruiser's design features? The article doesn't say, but I would be interested in knowing.
    • It totalled only about 100 tons so had no real effect on speed, etc.
  • There were several instances of ship names in non-italic format, I corrected those I caught, but please do take another pass through an make sure this issue is dealt with here.
    • Done
  • Why didn't the admiralty want the battlecruiser's damaged status to be known? Was that a calculated move to deprive the enemy of information or was that do to embarrassment at the damage from German naval artillery?
    • More the latter as initial reports were of a British defeat and they didn't want to add any confirmation.
  • The battle of jutland gives a number of times, but I see no AM/PM reference to the initial times, can you clarify this for us please?
    • Done
  • The German fire was accurate from the beginning, but the British over-estimated the range as the German ships blended into the haze. What haze? The haze of morning? The Haze of Battle? The haze from the smoke of the gun barrels? Please specify this. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • It depends when you're talking about. Visibility is ordinarily pretty crappy in the North Sea to begin with and all the coal and cordite smoke didn't help matters any. I've tried to specify if these latter two things directly influenced things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Support -- Passed this for GA and additional work since then seems to have improved further, so no issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 09:20, 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.

---

Battle of Winterthur (1799)

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...it fills a gap in War of the Second Coalition wikicoverage, article has undergone a GA review, and passed, it has requisite maps, and is a thorough survey of available literature (English, German and French). Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with alt text. Two external links are flagged in green, please check and make sure that they are still ok with regards to use in the article. Dab tool reports one redirect to the page, please locate and fix the link in question.

These are okay, they are just redirects from an index page to the sub page, which is how that cite works.

• • In the second paragraph of the political and diplomatic situation section you have the line "The French Directory was convinced that the Austrians were conniving to start another war." Under the circumstances of the article the word conniving could be seen to violate the policy on weasel words, I suggest that it be removed from the article.

They were conniving, and so were the Austrians.

• • In the outbreak of war section the first line reads "As winter broke in 1799, on 1 March, General Jean Baptiste Jourdan and his army of 25,000,[10] crossed the Rhine between Basel and Kehl." This sounds funny to me, might I suggest removing "on 1 March" or perhaps rephrasing so that the winter breaking and date do not sound as awkward? Perhaps something like "As winter broke in 1799 Gerneral Jean Baptiste Jourdan and his army made ready to move out. On 1 March, 25,000 troops under Jourdan's command crossed the Rhine between Basel and Kehl"? done
  • In the local section you have the line "To the west, the Töss river 59.7 kilometers (37 mi) long, runs north toward the Rhine." This reads awkwardly to me, I would suggest either removing the length of the river or placing the length of the river before its name (ie "To the west, the 59.7 kilometers (37 mi) long Töss river runs north toward the Rhine.") done
  • The last line of the first paragraph in the leadership sections references a weak brigade, may I ask what is meant by that? I presume less than full strength, but do you know why it was weak? I would be interested in knowing. it was less than full strength. Massena didn't have the numbers.
  • In the preliminaries section you have the line "Out-numbered almost four to one, Hotze's force was badly mauled by the French; 750 of his men were killed or wounded, and 1,450 captured; in addition, he lost two guns, and one color." My memory is a little hazy, but I recall using the word mauled in the New Jersey article and catching flack for it on weasel word grounds, so I would suggest finding another word to use instead of mauled. I don't know about your New Jersey article, but mauled is a fairly normal word to use in Napoleonic warfare. I used drubbed once, and Jacky didn't like it; changed to mauled, it it was fine.
  • In the clash section you have the line "Opposite him, Michel Ney, newly in command of the division of approximately 3,000 men, deployed his force around the heights, the so-called Ober-Winterthur, a ring of low-lying hills some 6 kilometers (4 mi) north of Winterthur." What kind of division? Infantry, I assume, but I would suggest specifying for clarity's sake. Mixed. Infantry, artillery and cavalry. They were all mixed by then, usually. It should have been clear, The troops at Winterthur included a brigade of four battalions commanded by Dominique Mansuy Roget, a weak brigade commanded by Théodore Maxime Gazan, and a cavalry brigade commanded by Frédéric Henri Walther ? Not clear?
  • In the fifth paragraph of the clash section you have the line "By mid-morning, Ney had moved toward the front with Gazan's brigade and he could see the enemy advancing in front of him; expecting Soult's reinforcements on his flanks, he still anticipated an easy victory, like the one three days earlier in which Massena's force had mauled Hotze's column at Frauenfeld." Again, I have concerns about the use of the word mauled, and would suggest that it be removed or replaced if at all possible.
  • In the last paragraph of the clash section you have the line "Tharreau manuveured around the Töss, attempting to re-establish his line, but Massena did not want a general engagement, not there and not then." Why didn't Massena want a general engagement? Also, the use of "not there and not then" seems a little odd, could you try rephrasing the line? done.
  • You're a little thin on visual media in the clash and aftermath sections, could you see about maybe getting an image or two added to the sections in question? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if I can hunt stuff up.

I've added additional images. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Support That's better, although I would still like those redirects and ambiguous links removed from the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the redirects in the references and citations sections, although I don't think it's a good idea, because now the reader has to know more German to find the section on Hotze...previously the link brought the reader directly to the Hotze bio on that site. As for the ambiguous links, I'm not sure what those are. I found a dab which had not been there before, and fixed that. Is this what you mean? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support A-class now by my standards. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- Looks good prose/detail/citation-wise. A couple of things:
  • Structure/illustration-wise, I'd prefer to see the leaders' portraits earlier in the article, closer to where they're introduced. Admittedly it might be hard to crowd all of them in further up but given the nature of the caption for Soult, his could appear in the Aftermath section and just Ney and Hotze earlier.
  • I notice Longworth listed in the Bibliography but not cited, therefore he should be moved to a Further Reading section. That's just an example, I didn't go through every single citation and reference matching up, so pls check all. Otherwise I can't see any issues - well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

checked other sources. Longworth was left over from a previous edit. I redid the leadership section, and added a bit. See if you like this better. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support One question I do have. You have an unresolved link to Théodore Maxime Gazan. Could it be that this is Honoré Théodore Maxime Gazan de la Peyrière? If so please fix the link. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:42, 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.

---

• Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

List of battlecruisers of Germany

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

This is the list article to tie together all of the German battlecruiser articles. I've never written a list article before, so I wanted to get more feedback before I take it to WP:FLC. Thanks in advance to everyone who reviews the list. Parsecboy (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sort out the formatting of the tables so the headers are usual size font (MoS here), and the data lines up under the headings, dates might work better all centred. If space is and issue, reduce dates to just the year. fate could also fall under the "service" header.

A mention of the alternative designation of the various german Pocket battleships and heavy cruisers as battlecruisers should be made, eg some might expect to see Gneisenau here.

See also to other appropriate lists - eg the British battlecruisers, german battleships.

GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

there's also overlinking to be sorted. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made some fixes to the table (as have a couple of other editors); does that look better now? The pocket battleships were AFAIK never referred to as battlecruisers, and the Scharnhorst class is addressed here. I also added "see also" links as you suggested. Thanks for your help! Parsecboy (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The tables are improved in terms of layout, but the overlinking remains.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, looks like I overlooked that. I've fixed in now. Thanks for reminding me. Parsecboy (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment - I'm glad to see that my suggestion for the image gallery was taken up, but I am unhappy with the number of images. The six are currently arranged with four on the top line and two on the bottom aligned to the left (at least that is how my browser displayed them). I am not sure if this is the general intention, but I believe that the gallery would be better with just four images, e.g. Von der Tann, Moltke or Goeben, Seydlitz, and a Derfflinger-class vessel. Having multiple images of the same vessel or of the same class seems to be a bit overkill for me, plus it borders slightly astray of the image gallery policies: going from illustrating the article with relevant images to that of being a repository of images. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Just as a note (I'll post full comments a bit later), my browser (Internet Explorer on a fairly wide screen) displays two rows of three images, and so looks balanced. No comment at the moment on the need for all of the images, except that they need alt text. Dana boomer (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I trimmed two images (the second Von der Tann and the one of Moltke); it's displaying as one row of four on my screen (though it's a fairly large screen). All of the images have alt text, but it doesn't seem to work with the gallery template. Is there a way to make it work? Parsecboy (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
      • And that is how it is now displaying for me as well. As to the alt text not displaying, I have no idea. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
        • So apparently alt text doesn't work with the typical gallery formatting. See Wikipedia:Alternative_text_for_images#Galleries for the formatting you need to use to get the alt text to show properly. Hope this helps... Dana boomer (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Thanks, it looks like everything is working properly now. Parsecboy (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
            • The note about Blücher was the only thing I would have came back with, but I see that you have already added it in. You now have my support as well. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - an excellent, well presented, sourced and illustrated list. I just have three minor comments, however, but my support is not reliant on them:
  • I don't think we really need "battlecruisers" bolded in the lead. Unlike articles, lists seem to now have unbolded words/phrases in the lead.
  • The opening sentence in the lead is slightly confusing to me, and I think it needs a bit of a tweak. I am not entirely knowledgable in regards to the German Navy, so when I read the opening sentence it seems to me that perhaps the Kaiserliche Marine was a ship or class of ship, rather than the then German Navy.
  • There is a little inconsistency with both "First World War" and "Second World War" present, but also "World War I". Also, if this article going the British English route, just make sure everying is in the correct spelling.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • I de-bolded the "battlecruisers" (see, I don't know that I'm doing :) Does taking away the italics on the "Kaiserliche Marine" make it less confusing? As for "First World War/World War I", I wasn't going for British English, I just thought it sounded better where I used it. While it's more commonly used in BE, us Yanks can use it too, right? Parsecboy (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support All appears to be in order. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 22:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Tom! Parsecboy (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support However, this bit in the lede looks very odd to me: German emperor Kaiser Wilhem since emperor and Kaiser mean the exact same thing, albeit in two different languages. One or the other is redundant, IMO. BTW, thanks for giving me a model to use for the British and Russian equivalents!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, who knows what I was thinking when I typed that... :) Parsecboy (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Support Close to support as I think this is a very good article. However, before I do, can you ensure that SMS and HMS are used consistently - that is that they are either always used, always used at a first mention and dropped for subsequent uses (except in the tables, where it is either or), or that they are not used at all. At the moment there is a mix of styles and these have to be formatted consistently. Another point, although it is not essential to securing my support, is to consider including the information on the World War II ships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in the lead instead of/as well as in the note, as I was expecting to see mention of them and had to check a couple of times before I saw the footnote. --Jackyd101 (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I removed them all except for the first mention of each. As for the Scharnhorst class, I'm not quite sure how to work it in. If you've got any ideas, go ahead and take a crack at it. Parsecboy (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I would just add the footnote as it is to the end of the last paragraph of the lead - it would follow it quite nicely. However, this is up to you and I am not requiring it as a condition of my support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Having read through the lead, examined references, looked at image licensing, etc, this article looks like a great A-class list. One minor comment, which doesn't change my support, is regarding the image caption "Von der Tann, seen at an unknown date". I'm not sure that the "seen at an unknown date" is necessary, as you don't have dates in any of the other image captions. Pointing a non-date out seems a little odd anyways, regardless of other image captions. Dana boomer (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for checking all through that. I removed the "unknown date" bit, as it is a little odd. Parsecboy (talk) 03:26, 23 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.

---

Passed by Parsecboy (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Cedric Howell

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I have recently expanded this article on an Australian First World War flying ace from a stub and believe it now meets the criteria. Has been passed as a Good article. Any and all comments welcome. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• I am not a fan of including a nickname in the lead, although I could see an exception if the pilot is better known by nickname than actual name, a la "Pappy" Boyington. However, the non sequitur of his nickname in conjunction with his funeral needs fixing. Georgejdorner (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Howell appears to have been well known by his nickname and it is mentioned in the introduction of several sources. In regards to the mention of his nickname in the prose, there was limited scope for a mention elsewhere and I do not see a problem where it is at the moment. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Heh, you can solve any dilemma here by noting the nickname and its origin at the time he received it, on joining No. 45 Sqn... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Ah! Good! Will definately move and add in there. Thanks, Ian! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments -- Looks good, before reviewing further, here's some info from Newton, pp.40-41, that'd be worthwhile:

• He attempted to enlist in the AIF on the outbreak of WWI but was rejected (no reason mentioned here but perhaps because he expected to be an officer and his age precluded it), before resigning his AMF commission to join the AIF as a private "early in 1915" - the last date contradicts by a year what you have but the fact he tried in 1914 is useful/usable.
• He went with the 16th to Gallipoli, "gained the reputation of being an expert marksman", and came down with malaria.
  • In regards to his enlistment and the mention of service at Gallipoli, this is not feasible as official records state he did not enlist in the AIF until January 1916 and embark for overseas until March that year. There were some minor mentions in newspaper articles that he was a sniper, so atleast that is confirmed now, though. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • If the weight of official evidence comes down firmly on the 1916 enlistment, as it seens to, then I agree we have to discount Newton on this point. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• He was a sniper with the 46th in France.
• He got his nickname at No. 45 Sqn due to his "tall, thin and dismal looking" appearance, brought on by a second bout of malaria just before he arrived in France.
• He was on patrol on 15 June when German and Austrian forces struck Allied lines across the Piave River, being the first to bring news of the attack after landing back at base at 11:40am. With the aircraft refuelled and 'bombed up', in company with the rest of the squadron, he then led his flight on a total of four sorties against the enemy insurgents. No. 45 Squadron succeeded in destroying with its bombs a pontoon bridge, a boat, and a trench filled with soldiers, before inflicting at least a hundered casualties with machine-gun fire. Heavy rain washed other bridges away and by 18 June the stranded Austrian forces on the Allied bank of the river were routed by a counterattack. Foregoing is in my own words, so you can safely use as is or alter at your pleasure...
  • Tweaked slightly, but basically added your version in. :) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Claim-by-claim list of Howell's victories confirms four "destroyed" and one "out of control" on 12 July 1918. He certainly made a habit of multiple kills: four on 13 May 1918; two on 8 June; two on 19 June; five on 12 July; and two on 15 July. Whew!
• On the drowning: "Peasants on the shores of Corfu reported later that they heard cries for help coming from the sea that night but it was too rough to attempt a rescue".

I'll come back when you've reviewed and added any of the above as and how you see fit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Will definately get to adding this info in. Thanks, Ian! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the Gallipoli bit, added in all the information I coulrd. I really have to get a copy of/access to this bloody book! Thanks very much for that, Ian. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's a good 'un - shame it seems to be a bit scarce. That said, my use of quotes from him above was more so you could see just what he wrote for your own information, not because I thought all the quotes were memorable in themselve - hence my further light copyedit where I paraphrase a few of them...! Anyway, it's all good so altered to support - well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing I forgot earlier that did trouble me a bit: not sure that employing the term "Central" as shorthand for "Central Powers", and equivalent to "Allied", is very common - who uses it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't quite specificially remember where I have seen it used before, but I have seen it used just as "Allied", etc, is. Also, I used it in Raymond Brownell without any issues/concerns being raised. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with alt text or ambiguous links in the article. There are two websites that are suspicious according to the tool checker, please check those two links and fix them if necessary.
  • Otherwise the article looks good to me. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 21:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review, Tom. Regarding the two links, for some reason the tool always has a problem with these sites but the link is always perfectly fine. *Shrugs* Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support Alright then, I'm happy. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

SupportComments

• Lead, "In one particular combat on 12 July 1918" is odd phrasing. Perhaps, "one particular encounter" or "engagement"?
  • Changed to "sortie". Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Fighter pilot over Italy, "Two days later, Howell was credited with bringing a Central plane," What?
  • Sorry, missing word there. Corrected to "... bringing down..."
• English to Australia flight, "Warringal Cemetry". Should this be "Cemetery"?
  • Opps, typo. Fixed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Once these are taken care of, I will be happy to support. Nice work on another article! Dana boomer (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good and thanks for the prompt response. Changed to support. Dana boomer (talk) 16:46, 23 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.

---

Article was promoted. EyeSerene^talk 18:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Smedley Butler

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it appears to meet all the criteria, it has undergone 2 separate peer reviews and seems to contain all the elements necessary. Kumioko (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Three Disambig links are reported in the article, please locate these links and if at all possible remove them. A handful of your external links are reported as suspicious, including to links identified as being dead, please check and advise. Six images are listed as being in need of alt text, please add this forthwith.

• Disambiguous links - Done. The links are fixed. --Kumioko (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Alt text - Done. All images now have alt text. --Kumioko (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• FYI: File:CaptureofFtRiviere.jpg is still listed as being in need of alt text. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks its fixed now. --Kumioko (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• External links - Will work on these next. --Kumioko (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• I did a lot of cleanup of refs and dates. I think its pretty much done now. --Kumioko (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• • "Butler married Ethel Conway Peters of Philadelphia in Bay Head, New Jersey on June 30, 1905.[10] His best man at the wedding was his former commanding officer in China, Lieutenant Colonel Littleton W. T. Waller. Butler had a daughter, Ethel Peters Butler, and two sons, Smedley Darlington Jr. and Thomas Richard.[1]" When I clicked on the one at the end of this sentence in the first section I got brought right back to the main page. This looks like an external link, and I think it may be malformed; can you check it and correct it if it is in fact out of order?
  • Otherwise it looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think everything is fixed know. Please let me know if you see anything else or if I missed anything. You'll notice I also added a notes section because some of the refs were really not references but notes and I restructured and cleaned up the references section. --Kumioko (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support I'm happy. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Great thank you. --Kumioko (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Support CommentsOppose

• I've made a few tweaks to the alt text. Per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid, "black and white photo" and the like should not be used, so I have removed all instances of this.

• Done by reviewer. --Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I also made a few other tweaks in the body of the article. Please check to make sure that I haven't inadvertantly changed any meanings.

• Done meanings still seem the same to me. --Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• What makes Ref #22 (Frazier, Wade. "Excerpt from" . The Business of War ) a reliable source?

• I found a better reference and used it instead. --Kumioko (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• OK, but it is still listed as a "general reference". This is an unreliable source that should not be used at all as a reference, general or otherwise. If you really want to keep it, perhaps move it to the External links section? Dana boomer (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE#Quotations, "Unless there is an overriding reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." From my reading, this means that the links in the quote in the Speaking and writing career and Anti-War activity section should be removed.

• Done --Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've added a couple of fact tags at the ends of paragraphs that need references.
• I am really confused as to the formatting of the refs. Some references are given in full text multiple times, others have full text the first time and shortened notes after, some have full text both in-line and in the "general references" section. In the further reading section, magazines are given with no article title to refer to, books are listed with no publisher, and why are three full books on the history of the Marine Corps needed for an article on one single person. Also, books by Smedley should be in a "Bibliography" section (which should include a full list of books he authored or co-authored), rather than tucked into the Further reading section. The External links section could also use a trim, as many of the links duplicate each other or references.

• Working Im gonna break this apart for ease of completion.

• Done - Refs with full text multiple times. Some done, still have some too do.
• Done - Magazine/Journal issues.
• Done - Books with no publisher.
• Done - 3 Marine Corps books. I reviewed these refs but and found that the different refs each show different details about different things that the others do not so I feel its necessary to retain these. Additionally I have found some new info that I will be adding to the article in the next couple days.
• Done - I have created the bibliography and moved the 2 that he authored to it.
• Done - I have started to tidy up the refs but I still have a bunch to do.
• Did a couple and I will continue addressing the others. --Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• For the most part, these look good. I have a couple of further comments, but I will list those individually later.

• Half of the World War I section is referenced to a book, General Smedley Darlington Butler, co-authored by the subject of the article and based on his own letters. This section includes phrases such as "While his superiors considered him brave and brilliant," and "The camp had been plagued by horribly unsanitary, overcrowded and disorganized conditions." (and then goes on to say how wonderfully Butler solved the problem), which should not be sourced to the subject himself.

• I would still like to see secondary sources added to back this up, although if these aren't available then I won't make too big a fuss over it :)

• Also, Butler's book "War is a Racket" is given as a general reference. Again, a book by the subject of the article should not be used as a "general source" in the article, as people who are writing about themselves generally put themselves in the best light possible, leading to POV, misrepresented facts, etc.

• Comment - Oddly enough the the book was written to be mostly self deprecating and he portrays himself as a thug and gangster working for wall street and the industries of the US. Although I can see your point. I have moved it to the bibliography section and I will review the comments that link it as a ref and see if I can associate them to a different reference. --Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why are both the original and the revised version of Maverick Marine used? Generally, only the most recent version of a source is used, as there is probably a reason it has been revised.

• Done I removed the original and left the revised edition. --Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• There may be a couple more books here that could be included in the Bibliography section. I am looking specifically at #9 and 10, although others may need to be included as well.

• I added these 2, the others are collections of papers or letters that he wrote so they are probably of low value to the article but I can add them if you think it necessary. --Kumioko (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any more information that could be given in the reference for #19 (Butler, Common Sense, 1935)? An article title, month or day of publication date (depending on if it's a daily, weekly or monthly magazine), etc? As it is, it's somewhat confusing as to what it is if you are looking simply at the citation and don't read the paragraph preceeding the quote.

• Done I found another reference that has the same info and used it instead. --Kumioko (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please standardize the abbreviation of United States to either "US" or "U.S." Currently, both forms of abbreviation are used multiple times in the article. A spaced "U. S.", as is present in the Director of Public Safety section, should never be used, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations

• Done --Kumioko (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Honduras section, why is "nervous breakdown" in quotes?

• Done --Kumioko (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Director of Public Safety section, "At the urging of Butler's father, U. S. Rep. Thomas S. Butler, the newly elected mayor of Philadelphia". Do we really need the name of Butler's father in here? We already know about him (and his career as a representative) from the Early life and family section.

• Done --Kumioko (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Military retirement and later years section, the punctuation is screwy in the first sentence. I'm not exactly sure how it should be fixed to convey the correct meaning, or I would have fixed it myself :)

• Done I reworded a lot of the paragraph but I think it flows better know. --Kumioko (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Other awards, "Butler also received several awards from other countries". Such as?

• The only award I can find that is mentioned specifically is the French one thats already listed (its the last one with the circle in the middle)> All the references just say something like other foreign awards. I will keep looking though and if I find something I will add it. --Kumioko (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps say something like "several awards from other countries, such as the French National Order of Merit,..." It just seems incomplete to have that sentence as it is.

As I believe these to be some fairly serious sourcing concerns, I am going to leave my review at this point for now. Once the above issues have been resolved, I will go through and do a full review of the prose. Dana boomer (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• The references are looking much better, and so I have replaced my oppose with comments. I have struck the issues I consider completed, and added a few more that popped up in a review of the prose. Thank you for your prompt responses; I am looking forward to supporting this article's promotion in the near future. Dana boomer (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• There are still two comments that have not been fixed or replied on, although I think that was just because they got lost in all of the text. I have marked them with "notdone" templates to make them stand out more. Dana boomer (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Still one issue with the Frazier ref, plus waiting to see if you can find any more info on awards from other countries and backup sources for the World War I section, although the last two are not deal-breakers. Looking more improved every day, though! Dana boomer (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• The final "deal-breaker" for me has been fixed, so I have changed to a support. Nice work on the article, and thanks for the quick responses to all of my comments. Dana boomer (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support as far as prose, reliable sources, and accuracy are concerned. I'm not qualified on the image issues. (although I can be persuaded, after some fixes)Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Kumioko has been diligent in fixing all the cite problems I've raised. I have reservations about the format of the source section, division of Notes from inline citations and general references that inform the work but that the editor hasn't cited specifically. BUT that aside, this is an interesting article about a colorful man. It was informative and informed, and I enjoyed reading and learned something. Always a good thing. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sources. Unlike Dana, I have no problem with the sources, especially his letters. Typically, a collection of letters would have the writer as an author, and presumably, the "second" author is the one who collected and edited them. Actually, the sources look fine, but the presentation is a morass of confusion. There is a bibliography that seems to include "notes", and a second thing that includes inline citations, and a third that includes other kinds of sources, generally a confusing assortment of citations. I'm all about flexibility as far as citation presentations go–I have no problem if someone wants to use the templates, or does not, or whatever–but this is a mix of several styles. It either needs to be explained, or a single style chosen and adhered to throughout the article. In terms of the public domain material, this should be cited just like everything else, and the qualification removed. If it's from the the Marine Corps site, fine, still source it. We need to know where some piece of info came from, even if it is a "public domain" site. And if you've done that already, which it looks like you have in a couple of places, then why is the disclaimer still there? Haverford awarded him his high school diploma June 6, 1898 before the end of his final year; it states he completed the Scientific Course "with Credit." This has no cite, and I'm not even sure what it means.????

Due to there being a number of things in this paragraph I am going to try and break it up and address each one individually.

• Comment - The bibliography and footnotes sections are seperate, the bibliography lists the books that Smedley Butler himself wrote and the footnotes section is for things that are just notes to clarify something without having to add a bunch of text that doesn't relate directly to the topic but are also not references.

Then the "bibliography" should be actually a section in the article, titled Writings. If you use books he wrote as sources, they should go under "sources". Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought that using either writings or bibliography (just like using sources or references) was appropriate for listing works that were written by the subject. I have no problem changing that though and will do that in a moment. And it is a seperate section. It is above, but not connected too the references. --Kumioko (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - The references secton simply contains all the different types of references, those that are "inline", the "general" references used in the article and those references that are just extra external links that are not used as references per sey but add additional verifiability as a link.

This is very confusing. I'm not sure why you don't keep them in the same place. What do others say? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, to me, it seems like it would be more confusing if they were all together, how would you tell the difference between an inline citation and a general reference. For example in many cases I give the full citation with publisher, ISBN, etc in the general reference and then cite the specific page for the inline citation. So if you see Foo p. 5 you can then look at the general reference for Foo and see what all the info is rather than putting the full citation with repetative info (except the page #) over and over.. --Kumioko (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - In regards to using multiple styles for refs. I use the same style througout r I don't understand what your trying to say here, which is utilizing the Cite templates, except were I use the same reference multiple times were I use ref name so I am not sure I understand the problem here.

If you are using the citation templates, then your cites should all be consistent, and they are not. See below. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out and I will fix those. --Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't understand what you are trying to say about the public domain material pertaining to the Marine Corps. As far as I could tell it is cited.

If it is cited properly, then why do you have the disclaimer? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, thats a valid point but a while back someone brought up a point to me regarding the use of disclaimers and that was if we use a disclaimer on a page then its easy to go and pull in articles from a certain source such as DANFS, without it, you have to try and use all the categories. Personally, I don't care either way and would be happy to remove it if the feeling is that it detracts from the article. --Kumioko (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Done - I will do some research on the Haverford credit question, clarify it and add a reference for it or remove it as appropriate.

• Prose. Weeeeelllllllll. I'm hoping someone else will go through this for prose issues because it has a lot of prose issues. In the Boxer Rebellion section, for example, I'm really not sure who got shot doing what. It sounds like Smedley went after a wounded officer, and several people got themselves wounded trying to get him out? And in the end, Smedley and the wounded officer went to the rear? I know the Marine Corps thing is no man left behind.... Other prose problems. This is an example:

Done - Seems reasonable:

In 1903 Butler was stationed in the Caribbean on Culebra Island. The United States government ordered the Marines and several Navy ships to sail to Honduras, 1500 miles to the west. The Marines were to protect the U.S. Consulate in Honduras from Honduran rebels after a revolution had begun. Several hundred Marines were transported on a converted banana boat named the Panther. They landed at the port town of Puerto Cortes. In a letter home Butler stated they were "prepared to land and shoot everybody and everything that was breaking the peace"^[15], but instead found a quiet town. After a short time, the Marines boarded the Panther and continued up the coast line, stopping at several towns along the way looking for rebels. They found nothing. When they arrived at Trujillo; however, they heard gunfire. A 55-hour-long battle had been going on between the Bonillistas and the Honduran soldiers at the fort. Butler took a detachment of Marines and marched to the American consulate, where he found the consul, wrapped in an American flag, hiding in the floor beams. At the sight of the Marines, the fighting ceased. As soon as the marines left, the battle continued and the Bonillistas soon controlled the government.^[15]

This is missing commas, has some unusual (non-standard) usage of semi-colons, and generally could use a good tweaking. How about:

In 1903, Butler was stationed in the Caribbean on Culebra Island. Upon rumors of a Honduran revolt, the United States government ordered the Marines, supported by a naval detachment, to sail to Honduras, 1,500 miles (2,414 km) to the west, to defend the U.S. Consulate in Honduras. Using a converted banana boat renamed the Panther, Butler and several hundred Marines landed at the port town of Puerto Cortes. In a letter home Butler stated they were "prepared to land and shoot everybody and everything that was breaking the peace"^[15], but instead found a quiet town. The Marines reboarded the Panther and continued up the coast line looking for rebels at several towns. They found none. When they arrived at Trujillo, however, they heard gunfire. A 55-hour-long battle had been going on between the Bonillistas and the Honduran soldiers at the fort. //which fort? what fort? huh?// Butler led a detachment of Marines to the American consulate, where he found the consul, wrapped in an American flag, hiding in the floor beams. At the sight of the Marines, the fighting ceased. As soon as they left, the battle continued and the Bonillistas soon controlled the government.^[15]

what happened to the consul? why did they leave? did they take him away with them?

• Lead.

Done - How many medals? Numerous is such a vague word, and don't we know???? After all, he was the most decorated marine, so, we probably do know.

Done - Also, call me old fashioned, but I'm one of those opposed, generally, to citations in the lead. Especially a string of them like that, making it incredibly awkward. Presumably, you're going to go into detail on the allegations he made, which you do, so I'd have no problem if there were no citations. , but I left the note. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see that you went through it. I should point out that the paragraph I listed above was an example of the kinds of problems, not the only problem. I went through it with a grammatical pencil, and fixed some of the punctuation problems and repetitiveness but ran into an edit conflict with another and lost some of them. Probably you should check to make sure I didn't mess up your citations.

The article still has some referencing issues. What is the difference between a footnote and an inline citation? Inline cite #18 looks and sounds much like the footnotes do. And why are "general" citations separated from both notes and inline citations? I don't understand why you did this, and it should be clear why, or they should all be simply "Citations" Why not have them all as "Notes and Citations". Or have the citations with text as notes, and those without as citations?

Vis-a-Vis consistency:

• Inline cite #5 has a spelling error. And no page #.

• Done --Kumioko (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Inline cite #10 has no ISBN

• Done --Kumioko (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Inline cite #30 has a stray mark -- ?

• Done --Kumioko (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Inline Cite 31 had different punctuation

• Sorry I don't understand whats wrong with this one --Kumioko (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Inline cite #12 is formatted differently than the others (date is in different place). Author's name is done differently, and it seems to be more of a note, not a simple cite. Either you're using a different template, or you've changed from templates?

• Done--Kumioko (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Inline cite #26 is incomplete--author's name and page number?

• The info was already in 2 other refs so I deleted the 3rd. --Kumioko (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

etc. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the prose pruning and I apologize for the edit conflict, I think that was me. I went in to do some minor things and didn't look to see if anyone was already in it. I will fix the above citation problems and let you know when I am done. Thanks again for the help with getting this article to the next level. --Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• okay, I can see part of the problem. Your list of Butler's writings such be labeled as "Works" or "Writings" or some such thing. A Bibliography usually refers to your sources for the article.

• Sorry for sticking my head in here (and AuntieRuth, I hope you don't mind me posting in your section). However, per WP:LAYOUT, on Wikipedia, bibliographies are generally used as another name for the works/publications section. It can also be used as a sources section title, but that page says ""Bibliography" may be confused with a list of printed works by the subject of a biography." I realize this is different from a good part of the scholarly world, who use "bibliography" to mean "sources" on a regular basis. Hope this helps. Dana boomer (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• No problem Dana. WP has some counter intuitive layout, and I have no problem with Kumioko calling Butler's writings "Bibliography" but it should be clearly distinguished from the sources. Perhaps making it a subheading of Butler as a speaker and writer. Or perhaps changing the name...Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• WP:LAYOUT is pretty clear that the Bibliography (or whatever it is called) should be a seperate section, and calls it a "standard appendice" rather than part of the article body. However, one of the other names (perhaps Works or Publications) would work for me, although I think that it is clear enough that it is not a list of sources as it currently is. Dana boomer (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• yes, that works, as long as the citations and inlines and notes etc. are clarified, although I would still call it "Works". Suggested readings should be Further readings (per WP:LAYOUT , etc., see below.Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Second, your sources are still screwy confusing, and inconsistent.

1. I still think your "general" citations belong with the others, although I'm not sure you're using them as inline citations. If you don't actually cite them in the article, then add them to your "Suggested Reading" section and I would change the name of Suggested Reading to Further reading (to keep with Wikipedia's neutral position). Also, you've qualified the Lowell Thomas entry. Why is that? He is among the foremost journalists of the century, and he should be wikilinked.

   Partially Done There were a couple of refs that I wasn't using so I moved them to the further reading. The suggested reading has been changed to further reading. Iam not sure what you mean by "qualified". He is wikilinked. --Kumioko (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

   you gave him as a suggested reading, but qualified your statement with commentary on how valuable or not he might be. I wikilinked Lowell Thomas for you.

2. I suggest changing names of some of your sections:

#:Create a section called Sources and as subsections of this section:

1. Notes (formerly footnotes)

   Done --Kumioko (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

   Citations (formerly inline)

   Done, I think. Because I have seversal military award "citations" I felt that just putting citations would be confusing so I changed this to Inline citations to be more clear and I changed general to general references. I think the thing that makes this confusing is that he has done so much and had so much written about him that we are using a lot of different sections. --Kumioko (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

2. Your "inlines" still have different punctuation. See 1 4 9 10 19-21, 25, 26, 29, 30, and 31 and 30 has a misplaced quotation mark after it. Some have a comma after the author's name, and some do not. It should be consistent, especially if you're using a template, unless you're not using it right. I can't help you there. I don't use them. #15 has an extra period after the C. Should only be one period
3. Done I fixed the ones that had the extra periods and commas, but I don't understand the problem with the others. They look fine to me. --Kumioko (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

   whatever you did fixed the other.

4. Your "inlines" are not clear on what the source is. For example, 1 Schmidt- is that Schmidt, Hans (1998). Maverick Marine, or Schmidt, Hans (1987) To Hell with Admirals....? which appears to be part of the other book???? 10 Boot p. 144 Boot, Max (2003). ? If that is the same reference, then why is one in the "inline" and the other reference to it under "general"?

   Done - Schmidt only refers to The Maverick Marine reference. I fixed the excerpt thing to use that book. --Kumioko (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

5. if Wade Frazier is one of your sources, and he appears to be, he shouldn't be in the external links section. I used to do that, thinking that's what external links were for, but apparently external links are for additional places to find info that we haven't used int he article. At least that is how it was explained to me.

   Done --Kumioko (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

6. why is Jules Archer in your Further reading section? You've cited him in your article.

   Done --Kumioko (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still having problems with how you've organized your citations. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wade ref is fixed, when I removed it as an inline citation I didn't notice it as a general reference. --Kumioko (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments -- Very good article about an interesting character, well written/sourced/structured/illustrated. I've done a light copyedit but a few other things:

Thanks for the copyedit. I appreciate all the help I can get. Does this mean that you are opposing or are you do you support? --Kumioko (talk)

Neither support not oppose as yet! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Early life and family: Don't think you need the citation in the first sentence since the next citation is the same.

  Done - I agree --Kumioko (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Speaking and writing career and Anti-War activity: Not sure why "Anti-War" needs to be in capitals, nor "Fascist" later in the section.

  Done - Me either. --Kumioko (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Honors and awards: Although quite nicely presented and properly cited, the pretty pictures of the medals seem unnecessary since they are linked and all the medal info can be accessed that way; it also tends to unbalance the article IMO. We had quite a debate about presenting this sort of thing in the Australian MilHist Task Force and compromised on putting all this stuff in hidden sections, e.g. as in Frederick Scherger.

  The medals are there to show the military medals he had and are displayed in the proper order as he would wear them on his military uniform. I don't really agree that it throws the article out of balance but I respect your opinion. Not sure what the point of a hidden section would be. If someon were reading the article I doubt they would know to look at extra "hidden" info that can only be seen by editing the article. Even if they did, if it were me, I would be inclined to not trust it if it was being suppressed in a hidden state. I could make the images smaller. --Kumioko (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  I could point you to the discussion where questions of imagecruft, listcruft, original research (due to interpretation from photos or general knowledge of what was worn where, rather than direct sourced evidence) and so on were raised if you're ready for a grand debate! Without trying to offend, I also think that this emphasis on the medal ribbons and their arrangement belongs in a children's book rather than an encyclopdia. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Bibliography: I tend to see "Bibliography" as your sources for the article, not the subject's writings; suggest "Writings" or "Works" or some such instead.

  I don't understand what your trying to say on this one. Could you clarify please? --Kumioko (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  Basically same comment Auntieruth55 made and DanaBoomer chimed in on above. I've always seen "Bibliography" used as a heading for sources/references for an article, but not for the article subject's published works, so suggesting you can avoid confusion by changing the heading to say "Published works" or some such. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  Done - I changed this to Published works. --Kumioko (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Inline citations: Suggest just "Citations".

  Thats how I had it originally but another reviewer felt it was confusing so I clarified it. --Kumioko (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  Done - Hopefully this doesn't upset one reviewer to appease another. If this is a problem let me know and well work through it. --Kumioko (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  Okay, I see the above discussion but I don't think it should get confused with citations for medals, however I don't mind too much leaving it as is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• General references: Just "References" looks better, not sure what's "general" about them.

  Thats how I had it originally but another reviewer felt it was confusing so I clarified it. --Kumioko (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  I saw mentions re. the section but not advocating the heading per se. I still think it should be "References" only, that's a very common usage.

  Done--Kumioko (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Darn, I'm still waffling. Ian, what do you think? The section now called "REferences" includes inline citations, just like the previous section. Do you think they should be combined? I understand the inclination to pull notes from the citations, but I'm still on the other side of the fence re dividing citations into two (or more) groups depending on some distinction between the kinds of sources they are. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I am really confused on this references thing that keeps coming up. You say you want to merge the 2 references sections but if you do how do you tell the difference between references that are used as inline citations (I.e. the top group) with references that are used as references for those citations. (I.e. the bottom group). These 2 groups of references rely on each other but are distinctly different. If you review the rules on using inline citations it shows that this is an acceptable style and the use of the citation template, for several reasons, is better to use although I will grant you that it IS much harder to use. If I do not do it the way I did you end up with a cluttered looking references section were all the inline ciations are the same except a page number and it is even more confusing when trying to cull through. I understand you don't like using them and thats ok, but it is a valid way to do it. I think that its called harvard style or something I can't remember exactly. I hope this helps. Here is the link to the refence styleguide How to present citations. There are 2 exceptions though, 1) Because this article already uses a Notes or Footnotes section to present notes about information contained in the article I had to change the name a little so that it was clear that the 2 were different. Apparently not clear enough though. The 2nd thing I just noticed when I reread the rules myself are that I did not include the year, which I do not think is needed because there is only one version of the reference but I will gladly do if need be. Here is an example of a featured article that uses the shortened footnotes method. This article also has shortened footnotes with the Year, title and page number. --Kumioko (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, look, the only thing that really appears odd to me about what's in the Reference section is the page numbers. Page numbers should only appear in the inline citations. Oh, and I'd usually expect to see a publishing location as well as a publisher for each entry. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed the page numbers from the references, but I am not sure what you mean by the publisher location. In one case I saw something that said publisher name and then New York, but I don't know if thats the publisher location or the headquarters location of the company so I left it out. If thats the publisher location I can add it, no problem.--Kumioko (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The big difference between the FA example and what you've done is the sections in which the editor lists sources. There is a Notes section that contains all the inline citations. The next section lists all the sources consulted in full format, including the location and the ISBNs, even divided by the types of sources: Bios, primary sources (things the subject wrote, like her letters), and secondary sources that were not bios. The references for Smedley Butler keep appearing as a point of contention because they were, and in some cases still are, ambiguous. Your References section includes four books that are not that you've cited, right?, but it doesn't include the other material you've cited. Your references section does not list all your sources. I'm wondering, also, if your citations section actually does list all your citations. In your references section (used to be called "general" didn't you have page numbers that were not included in your inline citations? I'm wondering if they should have been?). Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason I didn't have the references in a notes section is because 1) I have a notes section with notes and 2) they are not "notes" they are references or citations. My citations section contains ALL the citations used as "inline citations". The references section has the full citation info with ISBN, Author, publisher, etc for all the shortened references used. So if you see something in the citations section that says Schmidt pg. 5 you can go to the references section and see what Schmidt is. I removed the page numbers from the references because they did not refer to a specific page number that represented the number of pages in the book. If you see a reference that seems ambiguous please tell me which one and how its ambiguous and I will be glad to fix it. I originally had the references that Butler wrote but I was told I had to move them to a bibliography, eventhough a couple are also used as references. I hope this helps but know I am confused, because it seems as though we are all using different reference styles when doing articles and we are all confusing each other. --Kumioko (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruth, the Citations and Reference sections appear to be in sync as they are, e.g. Kumioko uses the citation "Schmidt p. 39" to refer to the book "Schmidt, Hans (1998). Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History (reprint ed.). University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0-8131-0957-4." The citations that don't refer to an entry under References appear to be either online or journal sources that include satisfactory details and don't need an entry under References. I agree that using page refs in the entries in the References section and in the Published Works was/is confusing, and if they represented "missing citations" then that'd need to be looked at; however Kumioko seems to be assuring us that everything that needs to be cited inline is cited inline. So my last recommendation is that the page refs in two of the entries under Published Works which seem to be unnecessary and ought to be removed. As an aside, if anything in Published Works was cited, the book in question would need to appear under References as well; however, that doesn't seem to be the case here despite the confusing page refs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the page numbers from the published works. They were just there to show the number of pages of the book and werent really necessary. --Kumioko (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Closure due. This review has overrun its review period and closure is now overdue. At present the article has the minimum three supports required for promotion, but due to an outstanding issue Ian is withholding his opinion. Is this likely to be resolved within the next couple of days? If so, I'm willing to hold off on closing the review for the time being. EyeSerene^talk 10:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • All my concerns have been resolved except what I consider the imagecruft of the medal ribbons, so although I thank Kumioko for his willingness to address all the other points and believe the article is the better for that, I can't in all conscience offer unqualified support. While our de facto standard at this level is not to go into such detail on the medals, we have no policy that precludes it outright and it's not really fair to make Kumioko's ACR suffer for that. That, plus the general excellence of the work, prevents me opposing on this one point, so in effect I'm abstaining... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agreed on Kumioko's willingness to work on the article and to make fixes. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for the replies. I think that addresses any lingering concerns I had that there was an "oppose" in the offing, so I'll go ahead and close up shortly. EyeSerene^talk 18:12, 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 03:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Pentland

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Nominating another WWI ace for A-Class review in this expansion from a stub, another great character in the annals of Australian military (and civil) flying... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment, in the lead his death date is given as circa 4 November 1983, the only information given in the body of the article is that his funeral was on 7 November 1983 - on what basis is the date fo the 4th given? David Underdown (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Just that 3 days is a rough average of time from death to funeral. I originally had c. 7 November that's hardly realistic. Unfortunately going through the microfiche of the SMH, The Australian, The Times, and a number of popular papers yielded no other obituaries or death notices. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Three days seems very quick to me from my (limited) experience in the UK, but I guess Aus might be different. Looking at the MOS, WP:MOSBD seems to allow use of "before" in various contexts, so saying before 7 November 1983 might be the best solution? David Underdown (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

My bad taste response to 3 days seeming quick based on UK practice is that it is quite a bit hotter down here... ;-) Seriously though, "before" sounds fair too, perhaps see if anyone else has an opinion either way? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"Before" might be the best way to go, as the three days may be considered to be slightly verging on OR, but also I have never heard of a funeral being held so quick! As an aside, it may be worth pouring through his service record(s) as I have found before that some have mentions of dates of death in them. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, not only pored through the service record as well as the newspapers, but even had a look in NSW Hansard for around that time just in case they eulogised him (no such luck anywhere)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Geez! Just to find a bloody date! Give it another three or four years and you might find some luck with the NSW Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments – a good article, and close to A-Class, but a few comments first:

• Is it really critical to mention the four higher scoring Australian aces in the lead? By all means, mention that he was the fifth highest scoring, but I do not think we really need to have them listed in the lead. Also, the fact that he was the fifth highest scoring and the mention of those who achieved higher tallies are not mentioned in the prose, so this is uncited.
  • I think that extra tidbit in the first para helps balance the two parts of the lead, so prefer to leave it. Well-spotted about not being in the main body and hence cited, though.
    • Fair enough, just as long as we don't get to the 10th ace and list all the names. ;-) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• In the lead, there is repetition of "attaining the rank of" in both paragraphs pertaining to his ranks in both World Wars. It might be best to tweak one of these.
  • I noticed that but the occurrences seemed far enough apart not to be too repetitive, but happy to alter one.
• The mention of Pentland possibly being "the oldest operational pilot in the wartime RAAF" is not mentioned in the prose either, and could also do with a cite.
  • Well-spotted again, tks.
• Is it known why he was nicknamed "Jerry"?
  • Heh, now you know I'd tell you if I knew, don't you... ;-) Oddly, even his bio doesn't say.
    • I assumed that was the answer. Geez, it would have been nice if Pentland was a little less secretive; unknown date of death; unknown orign of nickname ... Lol. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Are there any further details available about his service at Gallipoli or with the 12th Light Horse Regiment? The regiment's unit history is here if that helps.
  • Yep, I know that one from Elwyn King; not a lot there that's relevant but added a snippet, and a little more detail about illness.
• I would advise that you have a look at Pentland's First and Second World War service records. I had a quick look though his Second World War one earlier, and it may be of some use as it contains quite a summary list of Pentland's postings during both wars, as well as the full citation for his Air Force Cross. On a related note, I see that his AFC recommendation is cited to the AWM record of his medals, which is fine. However, I would advise that you take caution when using information from the AWM's collections, as the summaries on some of the artefacts I have found can be a little dodgey or just plain old incorrect.
  • Yep, always go through the NAA records to ensure no major contradictions with the preferred secondary/tertiary sources but apart from unit and promotion dates they're pretty bare. There may be something in the RAAF unit histories.
• Are any further details on his transer or training with the RFC known?
  • Can check the bio.
• "On 20 July, soon after arriving at his new unit" - it might be best to clarify the year, here, as it is a new paragraph.
  • Okay.
• "Baron Von Richtofen" - being picky here, but I think the "von" is meant to be decapitalised. :)
  • Quite right, and you be as pedantic as you like - I would... ;-)
• In the paragraph between his MC and DFC citations, it would be best if the year was clarified, particularly as the last year date given was 1918, but I presume this is talking about 1917?
  • Fair point.
• It isn't really mentioned when he was promoted to lieutenant or captain. Are either of these known?
  • Again, can check the bio.
• "threw an "uppity" AFC man into a mess fireplace" - although this does not sound pleasant, I find it highly amusing and am forced to ask is there any further info available on this? Where there any repercussions from the altercation?
  • I recall it mentioned in Couldhard-Clark's The Third Brother as well but don't think the description was any more detailed - might see next time I get hold of the book but that's not always easy so don't hold your breath...
    • Oh, well. At least it gave me a chuckle. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Is there any further information on Pentland's service in the Second World War. To me, it seems to be lacking a little detail-wise.
  • Think the balance is about right compared to WWI and between the wars but if the unit histories or bio yield more detail I'll put it in...

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Tks for review Bryce. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Back to you, mate... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Most welcome for the review. I found this an excellent read about a highly interesting, and amusing, man. I believe my comments have been addressed, so changed to support. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

SupportComments

• Why aren't the quotes "pulled" using the block quote formatting?
  • I think the quote template used is generally acceptable as well.
    • True. Personal preference I guess :)
• Lead, "for "Conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty"". Why is "conspicuous" capitalized?
  • Heh, no reason at all - fixed!
• Between the wars, "and came the day Pentland". Is this common Aussie phrasing?
  • It's certainly phrasing I've seen before in books (I don't know about Australian per se).
    • Interesting. It's not a phrasing I've ever seen before - "there came a day" yes, "came a day" no. But if it's used by scholars, then I guess it's just an American ignorance thing!
• Lead, "goldfields", Between the wars, "gold fields"
  • Tks - made consistent.
• World War II and later life, " was perhaps the oldest operational pilot" (also repeated in the lead). Do they not know for sure?
  • The exact prhasing in the official history is "probably the oldest", so it doesn't appear they know for sure. I could quote the wording precisely, but I thought that was overdoing it since I have other quotes from the history in there already.
    • Fair enough.

Overall this looks like a great article. Once the above are resolved, I look forward to supporting! Dana boomer (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Tks for review, Dana. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

My comments have been resolved to my satisfaction, so I am changing to a support. Ian, thank you for the prompt responses, and I apologize for not getting back to this last night when you first responded. Dana boomer (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Comment: Is there any particular reason why 1914-15 Star, British War Medal, and Victory Medal are not listed in info box under awards?

Regardless of above comment, I Support. Georgejdorner (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Tks for review/support, George. Standard practice is to only list honours/decorations in the infobox, not service/campaign medals. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Okay, Ian, I'll try to remember that little detail in my own writing.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

---

• Support No problems with alt text or dab links. Two external links are blue lit, please check and advise. Otherwise, it looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Tks Tom - yep, those links are definitely good, we Aussies use them all the time for WWI bios so must be a temporary aberration. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:05, 20 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 01:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Operation Windsor

Nominator(s): Cam ^(Chat)

It's been a long time since I did one of these. This article was mostly worked early last year; approximately a year ago. It passed a thorough GA in that same timeframe, and has been slightly tweaked on and off since then. This article concerns a small-scale Canadian offensive against German positions northwest of Caen during Operation Overlord, as a prelude to Operation Charnwood. Cam ^(Chat) 01:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems with alt text, external links of disambig links. Well Done!
  • The dubious tag is an ominous sign here, whats the status on that?
    • Ah, that was an old issue. I've reworded things to fix it slightly. Cam ^(Chat) 21:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Did the presence of HMS Rodney surprise the German's any? I don not see her mentioned in the battle itself, but the impression I get is that the Germans were prepared for ground and air attacks - but not attacks from the sea. Assuming she fired to support I would be interested in knowing if Rodney made a difference.
    • I haven't come across anything. Cam ^(Chat) 07:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Your 4 July section mentions petard-tanks. What are petard-tanks?
    • Added little caveat about that. Basically a Churchill tank with a really big 290mm mortar (basically Churchill tank for demolition engineers and rednecks). Cam ^(Chat) 07:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Do we really need three columns for the citations? Two I think would suffice. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed the columns. Cam ^(Chat) 21:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support Still awaiting word on the battleship and tank comments though. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support Very well written, I also ran it through AWB and didn't see anything. --Kumioko (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - everything looks good to me. Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 18 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 09:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Robert Peverell Hichens

Nominator(s): Jim Sweeney (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has been peer reviewed and just passed GA but I would like some pointers to get it to A Class. thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems with alt text, disambig links, or external links. Well done!
  • Your house names are in italics, but given the nature of the article I would like to know if this is necessary. Italics here lend the impression that we are talking about houseboats, but I find that hard to believe since a houseboat is in my mind not exactly the best place to raise a family. I would suggest that unless its absolutely needed you remove the italics from the house names.
• Otherwise it looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review - No they were not houseboats so I have removed the italics --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support Alright then, I'm happy. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comments Support: this is a very good biography in my opinion. Well done, I have a couple of comments I'd like looked at before supporting, but they are only minor:
  • should "Hill Climbing" in the lead be in caps?
  • in the infobox the dates for TA service are 1929-36 and RNVR 1936-43, however, in the Second World War section it says he requested a transfer from TA in 1930, so should it be TA 1929-30 and RNVR 1930-1943? Not sure, though;
  • should "Knots" in Coastal forces section be in caps?
  • should "Flak" (as in trawler) in 8th MGB Flotilla be in caps?
  • should "Motor Launches" in Casualties section be in caps?
  • in the Casualties section you use date range of "1942/43" should this be "1942–43"?

Other than these minor things, I think the article is very well done. I tweaked a couple of minor grammatical things as I found them. Well done. Once the above comments are fixed and or explained, I'd be more than happy to support. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hill Climbing changed to hill climbing

changed to and eventually transferred to the Royal Naval Volunteer Supplementary Reserve in 1936 does that make it clearer ?

Knot to knot

Flak to flak

I believe Motor Launch should be in caps as in Motor Gun Boat and Motor Torpedo Boat see this link [47] --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

My comments have been addressed, so I've changed my vote to support. Well done and thanks for your contribution. — AustralianRupert (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support: An excellent article. I can't see anything that should stop it from be promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 08:44, 16 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 04:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Max-Hellmuth Ostermann

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I'd like to find out if this article meets the A-class criteria, I think it does. I acknowledge the fact that the article is a little weak on his personal background. So far I couldn’t find a single source that would give us more insight so I focussed on his military career. Please let me know what you think. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with with external links, dab links, or alt text.
  • Remove the definition of the flying ace from the intro paragraph you have already provided a link to it, and that should be enough to solve anyone's curiosity for a definition.

• Actually this was required in every FA-class article I submitted (Mölders, Bär and Lent). So for sake of consistency I'll want to keep it here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I see. Very well then, I won't complain. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• • The wording of the last line in the second intro paragraph seems to suggest that the he was shot down, landed safely, then executed by Soviet Soldiers on the ground, yet the article seems to imply that Osterman was killed when his plane was shot down. I suggest clarifying the intro paragraph to clarify which of the two it was.

• Reworded MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Your German-English translations are inconsistent - sometimes the article has a English term following a German term and sometimes it doesn't. Lets try to find some uniformity here.
  • In the Eastern Front section, do you know what kind of bombers he shot down?

• SB-3s a variant of the Tupolev SB MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• • In the same section you note he was briefly arrested. When was he released, and what happened to the officer that arrested him? The article doesn't say, but I would like to know.

• fate is unknown, I added a sentence. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• • We are a little thing on images, any chance we could get a picture of his plane model or a family photograph or something along those lines to beef up the visual? I think it would improve the article.

• I added a picture. Please verify my "Non-free use rationale" MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Verified, everything is in order. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Otherwise everything looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support My complaints have been addressed. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 09:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I've made some minor prose changes, just don't get the Soviet Union and Russia confused - that's a bit of a pet peeve of mine, I suppose. – Joe N 19:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support The picture of the Bf 109 F-2 "white 2" tend to squeeze the text to the left (at least on my screen) is there any way it can be moved above the text or the width shortened ? This does not stop my support. WELL DONE AGAIN. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I made the picture a bit smaller. Have a look if this works out any better. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:48, 14 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.

---

Petlyakov Pe-8

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I think that this article meets all the requirements for an A-class article, although the lead may need to be lengthened. Suggestions are welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with alt text or dab links. One external link is reported as suspicious, please check and advise.

It was a redirect, which has been fixed.

• • The entire external link cluster appears to be in Russian, not that I am complaining or anything, but out of curiosity were you unable to locate anything in English?

The servers are in Russia, but the sites are in English.

• • See about splitting the intro paragraph up into at least two paragraphs, having the one doesn't exactly bode well this far up the assessment pole.
  • The bomb bay was modified to allow for a single 5,000-kilogram (11,000 lb) FAB-5000 bomb to be carried and provisions were added to carry VAP-500 or VAP-1000 poison gas dispensers under the wings. What kind of poison gas dispenser? Also, I am curious to know how such a device would work. Surely you'd have bee a lot close to the ground than 30,000+ feet? Do we have an article here that you could link to for the operation of such a device?

I don't have much at all on the dispensers, but I presume that they were canisters that mounted to the external bomb shackles and would spray the gas from nozzles in the rear of the canisters. Nothing on the Chemical Warfare article that is relevant. And, yes, I believe that spraying operations would be at a few thousand feet at most.

• • Perhaps a little trimming of the history section would do some good, there seem to be a lot of details in there concerning operations that I think could be better dealt with at the regiment and squad level.

Trying to give a sense of how the aircraft was used. Since so few were made there's a lot of overlap between the general history of the aircraft and the individual regimental histories, especially since the latter are incomplete in the sources.

• • See about formatting the external links so the site names are all that are visible.

That's the opposite of what the MOS says. But I've reworked them anyways.

• Otherwise it looks good. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 08:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The prose could do with a bit of a tidying before FAC, but besides that it was very interesting and informative. – Joe N 02:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific? I've stared at this so many times that I tend to be a bit "blind" to my own writing by now.

• Support -- Reviewed and passed this for GA, and since then further info has been added so I see no reason to withhold A-Class status. I note someone has added a fact tag to the specs but this appears unnecessary as a source is mentioned there already. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • P.S. Is there any reason the images in the body can't be bigger? I know one of them's a postage stamp but do they both need to emulate that when it comes to displaying in the article...?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Images blown up to 250px.

• Support — one comment: shouldn't the Hauptmann in Hauptmann Heinrich Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein be in italics and followed by an English equivalent rank in brackets (or vice versa). Also IV./NJG 5 denotes the 4th group of NJG 5, maybe this could be made more explicit. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I rather thought that the link would suffice for a translation for Hauptmann, but OK. But why should it be italicized? Rewrote the bit about IV./NJG 5.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:10, 11 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 08:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Friedrich Freiherr von Hotze

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...it meets requirements, it's passed all the previous steps (B, GA), it's even had a DYK, and it fills a gap in wikicoverage. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support.

:*In the lead you contradict yourself when you say in the first paragraph he commanded the left wing and at the end that he commanded the right wing. fixed

• In the lead it'd be nice if you could somehow integrate the parenthetical date ranges into the text - as it is they are kind of awkward.fixed
• "during the action on October 1793," Either in October or on October XX, please. fixed.

Fix these up and it'll be good. A very interesting read, by the way. – Joe N 20:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks better now. Sorry for the delay. – Joe N 22:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Support--Kumioko (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments

I think the article is very well written and does a great job of covering the subject. I do have a couple of minor recommendations though.

• There appear to be several references that are identical and I recommend combining the into one rather than several identical ones. The main one I notice is the one that looks like reference 4. do you mean the named refs template? I find that impossible to read when people use it, and won't use it myself.

That is the one I was referring too but ok.--Kumioko (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• I looked at the article in AWB and there are couple of places were months are abbreviated and per the MOS should be spelled out. I think the month in questions was Oct. thanks. fixed.

looks good thanks --Kumioko (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• The Military person infobox does not support Mother and Father so I am not sure if they should be there or not. I see that you identify the father in the article but since the Infobox doesn't display it you may also want to mention the mothers name as well. she is mentioned.

I see it now sorry, my mistake. --Kumioko (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• I see you use the de icon template, and I am not sure about its use but I do notice that many of the references look bare and I would recommend using the cite templates. Besides giving structure to the references it also allows for meta data about the reference to be read by other applications and websites. that icon is acceptable. What do you mean, they look "bare"? Not enough info? The required info is there, I think. Give me an example, please. I don't like the cite templates, find them very cumbersome to use.

What I meant by bare was, using 4 as an exmaple it just appears to be a link with no, publisher, accessdate, or publish date.--Kumioko (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Well, I use the full reference on the first mention and after that, an abbreviated one, according to AHA style (American Historical Association). The full cite is also included in the bib.

• I would recommend adding the placeofburial option to the infobox. he had two places of burial; one in Schanis, and one later, after he was dug up and reinterred in Bregenz. So place of burial is confusing.

Fair enough, I understand. I usually use the current or final burial location myself but thats just personal preference so I understand if you leave it off. --Kumioko (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope this helps. --Kumioko (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kumioko! Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's helpful. Thanks for reading. Does this mean you support? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with alt text. External link checker reports three dead links and a bunch of others that are suspicious, please check and advise. There are currently no dab links in the article.

**Throughout the article you have linked Hotze's rank to the main article, but if at all possible I would suggest that you try and find the rank for the specific country he was promoted in and link to that instead. no rank for specific country. Habsburg military. There is Austria-Hungary, but no Habsburg. If you know where it is hidden, please say so.

• • During his early career did he retain his rank and responsibilities while transferring between the Duke's army and the Prussian forces? The article does not say. neither do sources.
  • In the section "Habsburg service" you note that Hotze went to Russia after he was promoted to colonel. Did he retain that rank in Russian service? He was loaned to Catherine to help start the service arm. So he didn't enter her service, he was just borrowed.
  • Do we have link for Lieutenant Field Marshall? It sounds important enough for its own article. no we don't. It redirects to Field Marshal.
  • Nitpick: The article is a little thin on pictures, perhaps one or two more could be added? It would, in my opinion, improve the article. will go hunt for extraneous pictures. ' Added one.
• Otherwise it looks good. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 07:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support I guess this one's a little obtuse for finer details such as I've suggested. At any rate, its solid, so I lend my support. Bon Chance. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these Austrian field marshals are an obscure and esoteric subject. I found a source on the Habsburg military, so when I'm done with German Peasants' War, which should be next week and for which I could use a collaborator (hint hint), I' write the article on that. Until there is more info on Hotze, it isn't going past A class, as far as I'm concerned. If someone finds something else, which I really don't think is out there yet, then it might be possible to take it to the next level. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 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.

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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 02:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

USS Hawaii (CB-3)

Nominator(s): —Ed (talk • majestic titan)

• Comments
  • No problems with dab links or external links. I didn't see any alt text though, so see about getting that fixed.
  • In the design section the line The cruisers proposed as part of this ranged from the 6,000 long tons (6,100 t; 6,700 ST) Atlanta class to monster 38,000 long tons (39,000 t; 43,000 ST) ships carrying a main battery of twelve 12 inches (300 mm) and a secondary battery of sixteen 5 inches (130 mm) guns. Could you add a design or a class name of something to the sentence please? I read through this the first time and missed the switch to from the Atlanta class to the unnamed class referenced in the latter part of the sentence.
    • Take another look now. There was no class or design name in G&D, so...
  • Ten designs were drawn up through late 1939 and June 1940, most focusing on ships bigger than 24,000 long tons (24,000 t; 27,000 ST) and all utilizing 12-inch/50 and 5-inch/38 caliber guns. Could you clarify what we are talking about here on the design front? Did these start as heavy cruisers or battle cruisers, or was their a classification for them at this point in the design history?
    • Heh, I had a feeling this might get me into a little trouble, as I'm trying to summarize four pages of information in two to three sentences. I can't really answer your question though; all I can tell you is that the navy was only looking at the 12-inch gun for these designs, meaning that—at the very least—it was going to be a very heavy cruiser. I'm starting to doubt the Alaska-class cruiser's assertion (gotten from Morison and Polmar) that the class used "CC" (ie battlecruiser) early on because all of the designs in G&D that have designations are of the form "CA-2x", where x is a letter between A and I. I've got to finally get to reading what Friedman has to say in U.S. Cruisers before I decide on a course of action though. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Six ships of this design were officially ordered in September 1940 along with a plethora of other ships as a part of the 70% Expansion Two-Ocean Navy Act. Anything in there about the Iowa-class battleships, or the Montana-class battleships for that matter? They will be do for a PR/FARC at some point next year, and the more info we have on them for citing when that time comes the better able we will be to ensure these articles stay current on the OMT task force.
    • Well WP's article indicates that Illinois and Kentucky were the two authorized under that. G&D, p. 114 say that Iowa and NJ were authorized on 17 May 1938 and Missouri and Wisconsin followed on 6 July 1939, but are very vague about Illinois and Kentucky, only saying that they were authorized in "the summer of 1940". —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Can we find a picture of the planned conversion to the missile cruiser or to the command ship configuration? I think that in this case, as with USS Kentucky, a picture would go a long way to helping people visualize what exactly the USN was trying to do. I grant that this is one of those 'give or take' categories for improvement, but see what you can do.
    • I think I can, I believe Scarpaci did one. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Can we maybe move the gallery section out of the article? A commons link would suffice I think, but I leave that decision to you.
    • Well, the article only has room for three pictures if I want to avoid sandwiching the text between an image and the infobox, so I added a gallery to include a decent amount of photos. Then it just kind of ballooned into a five-image thing. I really want to keep the gallery in there, but should I reduce the amount of pictures to three? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Otherwise everything looks good. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 05:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Looks good, My complaints are addressed. Good luck, Ed! TomStar81 (Talk) 07:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Why are you pointing to the Hazegrey DANFS article? The most up to date one would be at the NHHC.
• Knots and nautical miles need US conversions. I tried to make this change but the templates exploded on me.
• Bag the gallery. Making up for short articles by filling it with pics is tacky.
• I'll be back in a few days to complain some more. --Brad (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments Brad. The first and third bullets are done, but the bed is calling my name, so the second will be a task for tomorrow. Will be waiting in a few days to argue your points. ;) (kidding) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• I was looking at the Alaska article and it mentioned a "carrier panic". Did that panic have any effect on Hawaii with its later build date from Guam? Seems like it did so might be worth including here.
  • I highly doubt it. I just double-checked the source for that paragraph in the Alaska class article, and it said that the studies looking at converting the Alaskas were ended in January, whereas Hawaii was canceled in May of that year.
• Instead of having to explain the use of USS in the opening paragraph is there anything that says you can't just use Hawaii (CB-3)? I believe the conventions pertain to the article title but not the wording within the article. --Brad (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, good thought. I included that from looking at USS Illinois (BB-65) and USS Kentucky (BB-66). If I remove it, however, it may cause confusion because every other United States navy ship article includes "USS". Do you still think it should be removed? If so, I will. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't know Ed. The issue is a difficult one and is currently being discussed again. Likely it's better to leave it alone but the alternative isn't a bad thought either. I suppose that removing the USS and the note will only result in having to place a note explaining why the USS isn't there. You still need to convert Mach to kph and mph as well as the nautical miles in distance of the missile. Alt text is still missing. --Brad (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I don't know either. I think that the USS with a note is clearer rather than "Hawaii (CB-3)^{[A 1]}", but... it's a problem no matter how you change it. I converted the nautical mailes, but I don't think I can convert the mach, as it varies based on what the speed of sound is in the medium, which (I think) would change based on height above the ground. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Support All of my issues are resolved. --Brad (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written and doesn't try to compensate for length by being overly wordy. – Joe N 16:27, 31 December 2009 (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.

---

Florida class battleship

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

I wrote this back in August, and haven't had the time to take this higher than GA until now. I look forward to any and all comments towards improving the article, so this can eventually go to and pass FAC. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to look the article over. Parsecboy (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Support - Comments

• Design section, "adopted for the preceding Delaware's". I think it should be "Delawares", without the possesive apostraphe.
• General characteristics section, "This was an increase of approximately 1,500 tons (1,400 tonnes) larger than". Redundancy, "increase", "larger".
• Armament section, "or Common types, though the Common type". Should "common" be capitalized.
• USS Florida section, "However, under the London Naval Treaty of 1930". I don't think the "however" is needed.
• Same section, last paragraph, there is a repetition of the fact that she was broken up for scrap.
• USS Utah, "Utah was also retained under the Washington Naval Treaty, and was heavily rebuilt during the mid-1920s.[4] In 1924–1925, the ship sailed on a good-will cruise to South America. Following her return to the United States, she was taken into dry dock for significant reconstruction." Did the ship get rebuilt twice, or is this more repetition?

Overall, this looks like a nice article, but there seems to be quite a bit of repetition. I've given some examples above; there may be more that I have missed. I look forward to supporting this article soon. Dana boomer (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dana. I've fixed everything you pointed out, except the "Common" point. It seems to be a proper noun, at least according to navweaps. Parsecboy (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. All of my comments have been satisfied, so I've added my support. Dana boomer (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good, but it'd be nice if you could get a specific name and date for the Secretary of State carried by Florida. Are you moving to the American ships now? – Joe N 18:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - this looks good, but I think Friedman and Bryer might have additional info. I'll try to add some tonight or tomorrow :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Tentative Support A preliminary read through the article did not show anything wanting, but I would like another crack at the article before offering full support. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • 'Suuport Ok, after another read through I find everything in order, but I am concerned about the size of the article when compared to the North Carolina and Iowa- class articles. I think more could probably be said about the class, but insofar as the requirements are concerned the article does meet the standards set forth for A-class. I do caution though that you may encounter some size concerns at FAC. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comments

Nothing has been added regarding wetness of the casemate guns as commented in the GAR.

Description of the armor layout seems a bit cursory.

A side/plan view from Jane's or Brassey's would be useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:10, 5 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.

---

• Promoted - MilborneOne (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

CFM International CFM56

I am nominating this article for A-class, as it has recently undergone a massive revamp. A detailed development and design section has been added, and the article recently underwent a detailed peer review. The CFM56 is one of the most widely used jet engines in the world, and it would be a good turbine representative for aero-engines. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Compressor links to a disambiguation page.

• Done! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• The alt text for the images is too detailed I believe, the way I understand it is that you are describing the image over the telephone and you and the person at the other end knows nothing at all about the subject(s), the KC-135 image would be something like 'a grey colored, four-engined jet aircraft is flying from right to left'. The Nixon image would be something like 'A group of suited men and military officers stand in front of three flags, two men are waving'. It's difficult but it can be done.

• I have gone back through the alt text, removing proper names and unneeded details. I think these comply with WP:ALT now, but another opinion is always useful! -SidewinderX (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Almost, the infobox image still has CFM56 in it, the 737 inlet has Boeing 737 in it and other images have technical terms like 'compressor, booster, turbine and fan case etc. (remember this is my wife describing the images to her sister on the telephone!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Good catch on the lead image and the nacelle image! I've fixed those now. I'm not exactly sure what to do museum image. In my mind, "blade" is the descriptive, over-the-phone word, and "compressor" or "turbine" is just the modifier. I could say "there are three sets of blades from left to right", but I feel like specifying which blades they are adds to the description. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• All external links including the references are currently live, I have not checked their reliability as sources.
• The auto peer reviewer tool [48] indicates that non-breaking spaces are needed, that units need to be written out in full (only at the first instance usually) and that there is scope to remove extra words like all, any, many, some and several.

• I have tweaked the text to remove some of those useless words, and I have slightly re-organized the headers and limited the TOC to get it a bit shorter. I have started writing out units at the first case, but if you spot one I haven't gotten, feel free to jump in a clean it up ;). -SidewinderX (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• SmackBot got some of the non-breaking spaces, but yea, there are still some more than need to be fixed. I'm kinda hoping that someone suggests a magical tool to automatically do that... *looks around* -SidewinderX (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• The tool is also indicating that the lead is too short, it's often wrong but I think there is room for another paragraph, the new 'Engine failure' section is not mentioned. It might be useful to add a timeframe, we have first run (1974) in the infobox but the intro to service date and any other milestones are usually included in the lead (there are some dates in the main text that could be used).

• I have tweaked the lead a little bit. I can't think of an easy to to incorporate the engine failure section into the lead... any suggestions? -SidewinderX (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• A suggested new third paragraph:

Although the CFM56 is a reliable engine several serious fan blade failures were experienced during its early service, one failure was noted as a cause of the Kegworth air disaster, which were serious enough to ground the fleet or required the engine to be redesigned. Problems caused by flight through rain and hail were also remedied by modifications. By September 2009, the CFM56 had flown over 450 million cumulative hours (the equivalent of more than 51,000 years).

Just a suggestion BTW, don't feel that you have to add this verbatim or even add it at all. I believe that you do not have to use cites in the lead as long as the information is clearly cited elsewhere in the article. It gets complicated if 'as of' is used (see WP:ASOF), I use 'by' instead! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, I've modified your suggestion and added it to the lead. How does that read? -SidewinderX (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Getting there! Are the 'continuing improvements' related to safety/reliability as that is the 'thrust' of that paragraph? It's implying that the engine still has problems. I'm not seeing continuing improvements mentioned in the article (although it might be there!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, good point. I got lost in the forest for all trees for a minute there. You're right; that paragraph is about the engine failures and improvements, nothing else. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Images - There is a lot of discussion at the Featured Article candidates talk page about the poor quality of images in nominated articles, apparent lack of thought on their placement and copyright problems. They particularly note that images are being overlooked at project reviews. I would prefer if another editor reviewed the images so that I don't go on!!

• Anyone willing to critique the images is more than welcome to! I know some of them (like the museum cut-away) aren't great photos, but, in that case, I feel it is useful in the article. One image I would like to use is a cut-away diagram (like the Flight International ones) and/or a flow diagram. However, none of these are free and it seems like defending a fair-use rational might be more trouble than it's worth. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope that helps, I won't hog this as I've already said enough at the previous peer review! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Support - I feel this article is A-class material. A-class criteria: "It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources..." -Fnlayson (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments - generally this is very good, engagingly written and well structured, cited and illustrated. I've made a few minor copyedits for style but have a few more comments:

Thanks for your comments, particularly for the "engagingly written" one. As I was researching the article I was drawn into the rather intriguing story of the engine, and I really wanted the reader to get that same engagement that I felt. I've read many a "good" article here on wikipedia that are just plain dull, and I don't want articles that I work on to feel like that if I can. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• You don't need to repeat the citations for inital run and number built in both the intro and the infobox; I prefer a 'clean' infobox myself so suggest you drop them from there and leave them in the intro.

• That makes sense. I'm guessing I put the cits in the info box first, and then worked them into the lead later. I have fixed it. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think you need the Work Split subheading - it's too small a subsection and should just be another paragraph under CFM International.

• That's a fine suggestion, done. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the KC-135R and DC-8 subsections. The former appears fragmented with a couple of single-sentence paras that could be rolled up into the previous para (the one that begins The USAF announced...). Also it's a good idea to always finish a paragraph with a citation at A-Class level. Both these subsections fail to do that everywhere.

• I integrated the short paragraphs into the main body, and slightly reworked the paragraphs to end with a citation. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Be good for first para of Design to have at least one citation, even if it is introducing the following subsections.

• Ok, I've added a sentence and the citation. I will say that I feel a little silly adding a citation to an introductory paragraph, but I've seen enough FA reviews to know that some editors here have hard ons (if you will) for that sort of thing. Done! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

All good, except could we have citations added for last sentence of First customers and last sentence of first para of KC-135 pls? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a cite to the First Customers section, and I've moved the cite over to include the last sentence of the KC-135 paragraph. I understand the "rule-of-thumb" approach to putting cites at the end of paragraphs, but in this case the last sentence is just there as a transition to the next paragraph, and I really don't think it's a "best practice" to list the cites at the end of the paragraph for the sake of doing it. It makes more sense to me to place the citation and the end of the material that needs the cite. That said, I'm the wiki-noobie in the group here, so I'll do what the practice is. -SidewinderX (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree but the reader doesn't know that for sure so it's generally best to cover all bases. Anyway, I'm happy to support this now - well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support

• I'd convert the 20,000 lbf to kN in the first para of the Development section even though it's not strictly a A-class requirement.

• Done! -SidewinderX (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Disambiguate the link to specific fuel consumption.

• Done! -SidewinderX (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Copyright on all images looks good.

Ok, notice anything else I need to fix? -SidewinderX (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2009 (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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 06:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Johann von Klenau

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...it meets the requirements and there's a gap in the Wikipedia literature on the Habsburg generals--plenty on the Napoleonic generals, and even some of the republican ones, but the Habsburg generals—not so much. It's been through GA, and Jackyd showed me how to make a cool box, and convinced me to expand it. As usual, I won't do the funky templates that add a,b,c,d, etc. on the references. It makes me crazy to read those articles, and add to them, so I don't use them myself. Sources are cited in full for the first reference, and after that are listed in abbreviated form. Bibliography and External links includes the sources I used. Thanks in advance for your helpful comments. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

MisterBee1966

• check dabs: currently three are reported Carabineer, Offenbach and Order of Leopold

MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

fixed. Thanks. I never remember to check for those. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• The picture in the infobox looks weird. I think you may want to remove the thumb tag as well as move the text to the caption. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The text was in the caption line, but the box had some weirdness. I fiddled with it and I think it's good now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Fix dashes, at least is incorrect. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

they should be okay now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Fix link to "Peter Quasdanovich|Peter Quasdanovich's" MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what was that! It's fixed now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Handshuhsheim? Should this be Handschuhsheim? MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Field Marshal in Habsburg Service" what is Habsburg Service? I think that should be explained MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• done. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

??Comments? Suggestions??? Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• "He fought in the Austria's wars with the Ottoman Empire" shouldn't this be "He fought in Austria's wars with the Ottoman Empire"?

• 4000 men -> 4,000 men

• "8th Hussar Regiment Wurmser" a reference to Dagobert von Wurmser is listed a few lines below. For help of understanding what a Wurmser Regiment is an explanation may be helpful.

• on 14&ndash:15 January -> fix dashing

• Battle of Eckmuhl -> Battle of Eckmühl

• Marchfeld plain link to Morava (river)

• promoted to General der Kavallerie isn't that a demotion? He was Field Marshall before

• He was a Lt. Field Marshal before, equivalent English term is Lt. General. General of Cavalry is the next (and highest) rank up for a Cavalry man. Feldzeugmarshal is for infantry, engineers, or artillery. see Digby Smith's explanation here. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Very comprehensive article. I support the nomination for A-Class. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• all comments addressed. See my note on the rank of general of cavalry. Thanks very much! Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support

• "On the Danubian plains north of Vienna, two battles shaped the outcome of the 1809 campaign and Klenau's forces played a critical role at both the battles of Aspern-Essling and Wagram, each of which were significant engagements: At Aspern-Essling, for the Napoleon's army was decisively defeated in northern Europe, demonstrating that the master of Europe could himself be over-mastered;[28] and Wagram was the largest European land-battle to date, engaging 107 battalions and 78 squadrons of France and her allies, and 108 battalions and 141 squadrons on the Austrian side.[29]" Way too long of a sentence and rather badly written, please rephrase it. fixed
• Have you considered making a section at the end listing the dates of his promotions and major awards, instead of that little box? The box looks somewhat out of place, and I've seen that done in other articles. sure, I could but it was suggested in a prior review that I put the material in a box. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, it just looks out of place to me somewhat. If others prefer the box though, that's fine. – Joe N 22:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Other than that it looks good, good job. – Joe N 20:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"107 battalions and 78 squadrons of France and her allies". This can't be right, I've only counted the battalions from the II, III and IV and IXth French Corps and I got to about 176. Could you please check the source, because it can't be the figure you are giving.I'm guessing it might be something like 207. --Alexandru.demian (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

yes. Those are the figures for Aspern. changed numbers. irt's 262 and 202. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

comments? more suggestions?  ???? Auntieruth55 (talk) 02

38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • "In 1795, by the terms of the Peace of Basel, the Prussians pulled out of the Rhine and Main river valleys. Without anyone to oppose them, the French over-ran these territories. Mannheim surrendered to the French without firing a shot[4] and Heidelberg appeared to be next." - just where is Heidelberg? And what is Heidelberg?
  • "Officer Cadet Klenau became a second lieutenant in 1775. He fought in the short War of the Bavarian Succession, also known as the Potato War, after transferring into a Chevauleger (light cavalry) regiment as a captain of cavalry, or Rittmeister." - why are second lieutenant and captain of cavalry in italics?
  • The whole "French Revolutionary Wars" section needs a little background. Why were the Austrians getting involved in France's civil war? How did Klenau get to ... wherever he received his promotion/where he was captured then rescued? I have many of the same questions for the "Action in the Italian theater" section.
  • "Klenau fought at the Battle of Bassano on 8 September, in which the Austrians were outnumbered almost two-to-one." - did the Austrians win or lose the battle? Don't make me click the link. :)
  • "Action in the Italian theater" section - Why was Austria in Italy now? When was it there? How did Klenau get there?
  • "Leading the advance guard of Peter Quasdanovich's right column as it descended from the Alps upon Brescia, Klenau's reconnaissance found the French garrison unprepared." - Peter who? Where is Brescia? Why is an Austrian army (I'm assuming...could be a regiment, for all I know) attacking this place?
  • "At midnight, Klenau led two squadrons of the 8th Hussar Regiment Wurmser (named for Dagobert von Wurmser), a battalion of the 37th Infantry Regiment De Vins, and one company of the Mahony Jägers." - who is Dagobert von Wurmser?
  • "However, alone at Montichiari, Klenau's force had to face Napoleon Bonaparte and 12,000 Frenchmen; his small advance guard was quickly pushed out on 1 August." - whaaat? Why was Napoleon now marching on Italy? And where is Montichiari? I don't want to click the links to find all of these locations!
  • "Klenau fought at the Battle of Bassano on 8 September, in which the Austrians were outnumbered almost two-to-one." - who won? Who were they fighting?
  • "When the garrison capitulated in February, Klenau co-signed the document with Wurmser." this is followed immediately by the section "Campaigns of 1799–1800". If he previously surrendered, how did he get away to fight again?
  • "In the 1799 campaign in Italy, Klenau and his 4,500 troops inspired and assisted in an uprising of another 4,000 or more peasants in the countryside." - where in the countryside? Just how did they "[inspire] and [assist]" them?
  • "This isolated the French-held fortresses, making them vulnerable to Suvorov's main force operating in the Po River valley." - what French fortresses?
  • "... and in May, 1800, he fought in the battles of Engen and Stockach and Messkirch against the troops of the French Army of the Rhine, under Moreau." - where were these battles fought?
  • "In the spring and summer of 1809, the Austrian army battled for the "survival of the dynasty," as Archduke Charles described the situation to his brother John." - who is this archduke and who is his brother?
  • I still need to go through the rest of the article, but can you see why I am having difficulties? Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

okay, so you're having problems with the assumption of too much background information. This can be fixed readily. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. To someone who knows next to nothing about these wars like me, this article was virtually incomprehensible. :) I see you have started; take as much time as you need in adding the information. I'll wait until you are done before taking another gander through it. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

would you please take a gander through the parts of the article that are already expanded, and see if this is sufficient? I don't want to go tooooo far. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Further comments - much better, thank you! A few more thoughts for you:

• "In his early military career, Klenau demonstrated, not only at Zemon, but also in the skirmishing and raids of 1778-1779, the military acumen, flexibility, and intrepidity required of a successful cavalry officer." - may want to use less complex words at the end. I don't know what acumen is, non-military people may not understand why "flexibility" is important (or even what it is), and "intrepidity" is a rather complex word. okay, some adjustment made.
• "From their base in Koblenz, immediately over the French border, they sought direct support for military intervention from the royal houses of Europe, and raised an army." - does this mean "immediately on the French border"? no. adjacent? fixed.
• "On 12 February 1793, Klenau received his promotion to lieutenant colonel in a Lancer regiment serving under General of Cavalry Count Dagobert Sigmund von Wurmser." - why did he receive a promotion? Wurmser wanted him, I suspect. None of the sources actually say why he was promoted.
• "The outraged Austrian commanders had to withdraw across the Main river, because the French held the Rhine crossing point" - where is the Main river and what was the Rhine crossing point? The Main and the rhine run together. If the French held the Rhine crossing point, the Austrians had to withdraw across the Main so they didn't get cut off from their buddies to the south. Fixed.
• "Klenau took possession of the town on 21 May, and garrisoned it with a light battalion." "By 0300 on 23 May, the French had evacuated the town, which Klenau then garrisoned with the light battalion of Bach. After giving the requisite request for surrender at 0800, which was refused, Klenathe barrage from both from mortars and howitzers" - if they evacuated the town, why are there still French there fighting? they were in the fortress. fixed
• "on 24 May 1799, Klenau captured the fortress at Ferrara, a lynch-pin in the French Po River defenses." - the linchpin part should be mentioned earlier when describing the place. done
• "Although Ferdinand retained nominal command, and Karl Mack, was timid, indecisive, and ill-suited for such an important assignment." - needs copyediting. Yes it did. Thanks. Done
• "Murat captured intact Lieutenant Field Marshal Joseph, Baron von Mesko de Felsö-Kubiny's division of five infantry regiments (15,000 men) and 15 colors." - "colors"? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I put an explanation of the colors in the note. other comments also fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks pretty darn good to me now! Support —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:22, 4 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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 08:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Vernon Sturdee

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Another biographical page on an Australian general. Sturdee was promoted directly from colonel to lieutenant general. He is the last of the pre-Duntroon chiefs of the general staff. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Support - Comments

• Is it really necessary to have two images of Sturdee receiving the Japanese surrender? The captions are even identical.
  • Which do you prefer? One is in colour, which is a big plus - but Sturdee is obscured. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I prefer the black and white shot, because Sturdee is not obscured, but it's up to you. Also, possibly note in either the caption or the image description which officer is Sturdee in the surrender photos?
• Lead, "became head of the Head of the Australian Military Mission". Is "head of the Head" really what that is supposed to say?
  • It was a typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• The lead feels rather choppy, and reads that way as well, because of the consecutive short paragraphs. Could any of these paragraphs be combined, or maybe expanded slightly? For an article of this length, three to four paragraphs is the norm, per WP:Lead, so any combination of expansion and combination would probably work.
• Education and early life, "(alter Sir Charles Merrett)." Is this supposed to say "later"? I would have changed it, but wasn't sure if there was a military jargon thing I was missing... :)
  • Typo. Often happens with letters on opposite sides of the Qwerty keyboard. My right hand types faster than the left. **It was a typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Same section, "he was commissioned as second lieutenant in". Should this be "a second lieutenant"?
  • Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Defence of Australia, "which the old military distracts were". Maybe I'm missing something, but what's a distract?
  • Distracts -> Districts. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Post war, "demobilised but what should replace had not yet". I think something is missing after "replace".
  • Good point. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Do any of your sources say why he burned his private papers? Not a necessary fact, but something that I was curious about after reading the last sentence of the article.
  • He is reported to have said: "I have done the job. It is over." I have no idea. He wasn't the only one. Others that come to mind are James Whiteside McCay, James Gordon Legge and Horace Robertson. I think there was some criticism of Harold Edward Elliott, who continues to fight his old battles from boxes in the War Memorial. Did I mention that I have no idea? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Citation and cite xxx templates should not be mixed - it messes something up with the formatting in a way that is way over my head and pretty much only the code-writers understand...
  • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Not quite done. The in-line citations all use cite xxx, but the entries in the references section use the citation template. Dana boomer (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A nice article, just in need of a few tweaks. I made a few edits, mainly copyediting and alt text; please check to make sure I didn't mess anything up or change any meanings accidentally. Dana boomer (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my comments. I have changed my "comments" to a support. Dana boomer (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments – good article, but some work is required yet:

• I would have to agree with Dana in regards to the lead. There is a bit of repetition, and further clarification is required in some areas. For example, the average reader would have no idea what Sturdee became Commander in Chief of. Also, the first two paragraphs could safely be combined, in think.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• The first sentence in the "Education and early life" section is very similar to the ADBs, and could use some tweaking.
  • Done. I've re-written it.
• Instead of following the ADB's suit, I think the information on Sturdee's father in the First World War should be moved into the "First World War" section.
  • The purpose of the stuff on his father is to establish his military background. I've expanded it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Now that it has been expanded, I can see your point. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• The three latter sentences in the second paragraph of the "Education and early life" section are all introduced the exact same, and could use some re-working.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• As far as I am aware, the rank of "first lieutenant" has never existed in the Australian Army, but is just simply "lieutenant". Am I missing something/have it wrong, or is this, somewhat erronously, attached?
  • Done. Most likely me failing to override the page name, but I had to do some real research to verify what you said was true, as it used to be called "1st lieutenant" in the RAE in Victorian times... Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I just figured you were working on several articles on American military personnel recently. ;-) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• "promoted to captain on 18 October 1914" - the year is redundant, considering it was just stated in the previous sentence.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• "on Anzac Day 1915" - it wasn't known was Anzac Day until after the event, so I think "25 April" is best be used here.
  • There won't be anyone in Australia or New Zealand for whom 25 april 1915 isn't the most famous date in history, but people from other countries may not get it. Done anyway.
    • That's my point; we know, but people from other nations won't. Also, I think the date link to Anzac Day now could be considered somewhat of an easter egg ... Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• "work at Steele's, Quinn's and Courtney's Posts" - it should probably be clarified that these posts were at Gallipoli, as it is not stated that he returned to the peninsula and the reader assumes it is in Egypt.
  • Done. There should be articles on these... Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I've thought the same previously, but lack the sources to do anything about it ... Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• It should also be clarifed that he left Gallipoli in the Allied evacuation, other than leave some unanswered questions.
  • On 17 December 1915. One day before the official two-day evacuation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Umm, which one of the 5th Field Companies was re-named?
  • Sturdee's one. Noted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• I think further information on his DSO should be included. The AWM recommendation is here, if that helps. :)
  • I used it already asc a source for most of the details of what he was doing at Gallipoli and on the Western Front.
    • Sorry, must of missed that. It just still seems to be slightly lacking, though, in that it does not fully convey why his actions stood out from others for such an award. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Same for Sturdee's OBE.
  • Nothing in the recommendation, except that it is from Haig, so was for his work at GHQ. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• "continuing ""Australianisation" of the Australian Corps" - this needs to be clarified, as in what is meant by "Australianisation", which resulted in Sturdee's appointment.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• I would recommend that File:Sturdee at Anzac.jpg be increased in size as it is rather small as is.
  • Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• There is quite a bit of repetition of "where" in the first paragraph of the "Between the wars" section.
  • Removed one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Is it known why, exactly, he was selected to jump from colonel to lieutenant general in command of Eastern Command?
  • Well, the post was graded lieutenant general. Sturdee was I believe the second most senior colonel in the regular Army after Lavarack. Officially, such promotions are based purely on merit but... Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• In the "Second World War" section, it should probably be clarified that the "AIF" referred to is the Second, not the one from the First World War.
  • I hadn't thought it was ambiguous but generally speaking, people think of The AIF as the First AIF. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• "more likely, he also the prospect" - a gramma issue there ...
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• In the "East Indies campaign" section, it needs to be clarified why the units were posted to several islands.
  • Because there are too many to post garrisons to all of them? Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• When did he assume command of the First Army?
  • On 1 March 1944. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• The article could benefit from a few extra images, I think, especially in the "Western Front", "Between the wars" and earlier in the "Second World War" sections, which are all a little bare.
• The capitalisation of access dates in the citations and references is inconsistent.
  • you mean the word "retrieved"? There's an inconsistency between the LondonGazette and Citation templates. We'll have to petition for a change to such widely used templates. Which is correct? Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes. I would say the capitalised varient is the best form. Also, it you use Template:Cite web or Template:Cite book then it is all consistent. If you do swap these over than you do not need to re-add the whole form again, just change "Citation" at the start of the templates to "Cite web" or "Cite book" as the basic additives are the same. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Very good all up, took the liberty of copyediting for prose but the detail and referencing was already at a high level. Some further points:

• Sturdee returned to Australia, and his AIF appointment was terminated on 14 March 1919 - does this mean they took place the same day? If not, I'd have thought the AIF Project site had his return date or, failing that, the sentence could be rendered as something like Sturdee returned to Australia following the Armistice, and his AIF appointment was terminated on 14 March 1919.
  • Clarified, using the embarkation roll. Sturdee's file is not online. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Minor point, is the standard Australian Army expression “Commander in Chief” or “Commander-in-Chief”? You have it consistently as the former, I'm just curious.
  • The Army decided to dispense with the hyphens many years ago. Sometime after the Second World War but before I came on the scene in the 1980s. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• I agree that the article could use a few more illustrations. Why not include the AWM pic of Alfred Hobart Sturdee at Gallipoli for a start, given the space you rightly allocate to his career? Another thing I've suggested before when there were few pics around is to break up the grey stuff with a quote box or two. Back on the images, don't forget to check Picture Australia as well as AWM directly, since the former includes stuff from state libraries, NAA, etc.
  • That's a good site. I've bookmarked it. Alfred is much more historian accessible that Vernon. His file is available. his papers are in the War Memorial. There's even photos of him from the Boer War. Too bad he isn't notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Since your “Post war” section is one long para (which I understand, as it all flows quite logically as one) and the “Later life” section is two short paras, you might consider merging the later life paras, and then combining with the post-war section, to make a two-paragraph “Post-war career and later life” section.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hawkeye, not sure that my last two comments have been acted on despite the responses. Were you going to add some more images such as one of his father at Gallipoli (would probably work best in “Education and early life”) or, failing that, some quote boxes to break up the text? Also, were you going to merge the last two sections? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I twice uploaded pictures, then decided not to use them. I will try again. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I tweaked some readability issues, but it looks good now. – Joe N 22:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support: I believe that this article meets A class criteria. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:00, 1 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.

---

• Promoted Nick-D (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Osan

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!^(talk) 02:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting article. I've learned a lot from it (always a good thing), and you're filling a gap in wikicoverage. That said, here are some general comments:

• Lead is pretty short. Can you expand it some, and make it smoother? For example, you have a few shifts of verb tense, which is awkward, and the focus drifts a bit from the subject. It would read better in the simplest past tense.
  • Fixed verb tenses and made the lead longer. —Ed!^(talk) 18:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• good. May need some more work later in the process. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've tweaked it some more. See if it passes muster. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Awkwardness. There are many sentences like this one throughout: The force of 89,000 men moved in six columns, catching the Republic of Korea Army completely by surprise, resulting in a complete rout for the South Koreans, who were disorganized, ill-equipped, and unprepared for war (Background) which could be better constructed. For example: The force of 89,000 men moved in six columns, surprising the South Korean army and resulting in a complete rout of the disorganized, ill-equipped and unprepared South Koreans. I selected this one as an example. There are many more that would benefit from parallel structure, simplified modifiers, and simpler verbs.
  • I've gone through and simplified as much of the article as I could. I think the readability has been substantially improved. —Ed!^(talk) 18:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• yes, much improved. Won't pass FA at this level, though. Could you step up another notch? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Simplified even more. How does it look now? —Ed!^(talk) 06:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Still confusing. On the night of June 25, 1950, ten divisions of the North Korean People's Army launched a full-scale invasion on the nation's neighbor to the south, the Republic of Korea. The force of 89,000 men moved in six columns, catching the Republic of Korea Army by surprise, resulting in a complete rout. The smaller South Korean army suffered from widespread lack of organization and equipment, and it was unprepared for war.[2] Numerically superior, North Korean forces destroyed isolated resistance from the 38,000 South Korean soldiers on the front before it began moving steadily south.[3] Most of South Korea's forces retreated in the face of the invasion. By June 28, the North Koreans had captured South Korea's capital of Seoul, forcing the government and its shattered forces to retreat further south.[4]

The middle sentences say the same thing, basically, just in different ways. Where did the South and North Koreans engage? On the night of June 25, 1950, ten divisions of the NKPA launched a full-scale invasion on the nation's neighbor to the south, the RK. A force of 89,000 men crossed the international border in six columns, surprising the 38,000 men of the South Korean army and routing them at *where: multiple places?*. Unprepared, poorly equipped and badly organized, the South Koreans were unable to mount a coordinated defense. Most units retreated, and the North Koreans systematically destroyed any isolated resistance. In 72 hours, by 28 June, the North Koreans crossed the (how far) of territory and captured the South Korean capital of Seoul, forcing the government and its shattered army to retreat further south.

• Ambiguous actors. The 21st Infantry Regiment was determined to be the most combat-ready of the 24th Infantry Division's three regiments, and the 21st Infantry's 1st Battalion was selected because its commander, Lieutenant Colonel Charles B. Smith, was the most experienced, having commanded a battalion at the Battle of Guadalcanal during World War II. Who determined this? Truman? MacArthur? My kindergarten teacher? General Who-Howitzer identified the 21st Infantry Regiment as the most combat-ready of the 24th Infantry Division's three infantry regiments. Furthermore, the commander of the 21st Infantry's 1st Battalion, Lt. Colonel Charles B. Smith had the most combat experience, dating from his participation as a battalion commander at the Battle of Guadalcanal. (or something like this).

• • I've clarified that the decisions were made by General Dean. —Ed!^(talk) 20:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This was much less ambiguous, but still wordy. See if what I suggested made sense. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll post some more tomorrow. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Joe (below) about this article. Much improved since the start, although still needs some polishing. In particular the lead needs some help.  :) I'll be glad to work with you on it after tomorrow, if you'd like. Generally, I support this, for content and coverage, focus and context. The citations appeared reasonable to me.

Lead: The Battle of Osan was the first engagement between United States and North Korean forces during the Korean War. A US task force of 400 infantry supported by an artillery battery were moved to Osan, south of the South Korean capital Seoul, and ordered to delay advancing North Korean forces for as long as possible while more US forces arrived in the country to support them.

? In the Battle of Osan (July 1950), a United States task force delayed an advancing North Korean army south of the Seoul, the capital of South Korea. It was the first engagement of the five year Korean War.  ?? Not great, but the first sentence needs a date, and what it was. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm still not really happy with the prose, although content is good. Could we also have a map? this one could be tweaked to suit. File:Korean Peninsula topographic map.png My geographical knowledge of Korea is very shaky. Perhaps it would help also to put some distances in the article. I've tweaked it some, and feel free to undo what I did if I've really mucked it up. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Fixed some minor readability problems, but...

• "Before nightfall 250 of Task Force Smith's force had returned to the American lines, about 150 of them killed, wounded or missing." How could they return if they were dead or missing? Please clarify this sentence.

Much improved since the start of the review, and should be good, although some polishing might be necessary before FAC. – Joe N 21:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 01:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport: Not a bad effort. I have a few points:
  • there are no dabs, external links all work and alt text is present;
  • I think the alt text might need a little work to make them a little more descriptive (for example the first image might detail the colour of the uniforms, and that there is a soldier in DPCU at a lecturn, etc.;
    • This one has been dealt with, but if you are thinking of taking it to FA, I'd suggest enlisting the help of an alt text expert. Alt text is not my strong suit so unfortunately I can't really help, but I still feel that perhaps the alt text in the article could be improved a bit more and someone with more experience at it might be able to give a few more specific suggestions. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 00:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • could converts be added to values like yards, meters, miles etc?
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 00:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • in the Tank columns section you have "24th division", I think this should be capitalised as "24th Division" as it is a proper noun;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • there is some inconsistency in style, e.g. you use "US" in some places and then "U.S." in others (see for instance the Aftermath section);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • should "Howitzer" be capitalised as you have done, (see for instance in the lead)?
    • • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Citations # 12 and 18 could be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS as you have done with the others.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I will have another read over it soon. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• • Another inconsistency in style, the company designations seem to vary. In one instance you use Company B and then in another you use B Company. (See for example in the Aftermath section). — AustralianRupert (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I have switched the consistency of all of the formations. They should all read "A Battery", "B Company" and "C Company" now. —Ed!^(talk) 17:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
      • My concerns have been addressed, so I add my support to this article. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comments
  • In your own words, what makes rt66.com a reliable source? To me, it appears to be of iffy quality, but I want your opinion on the matter before I judge the site too harshly.
    • I don't understand what you mean; I didn't use that source as a reference, the only two web site references I used were the US Army Homepage and the US Army Japan Homepage. If that site is being used as a reference anywhere in the article then it was not done by me and I would remove it. —Ed!^(talk) 23:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • In the "outbreak of war" section I would like to hear more about the drawbacks to the services; this can be accomplished either by adding to the article or by adding a main article link at the top and finding a page that better suits the discussion of the times. Being that we were so poorly prepared for the attack and that this page lists the belligerents as U.S. and NK I think you could get a way with a little more info on the US situation here. It would certainly help paint the bleak picture of the services at the time, providing the 'context for the content' such as it were.
    • Linked to the US intervention section on the Korean War article, which has the information I think you're looking for. —Ed!^(talk) 23:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • In the section "task force smith" you have an infobox for the units composition and a quote. These two are close enough together that they could cause some text bunching in larger monitor displays. May I suggest you look into moving the quote to the top of the section, such that appears as the one here does? I will not hold this one against you, but I think it may help the text flow some.
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 23:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Your images seem to force size with size parameters, as a rule though, we try and have people leave the size parameter blank by simply listing the image as "thumb", that way the browser for the computers used to access the page can configure the image to the right size for the monitor in question.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Otherwise it looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Will address these issues over the next few days. —Ed!^(talk) 20:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I think I have conslusively responded to all of your concerns. —Ed!^(talk) 23:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Re images, MOS:IMAGES now includes a provision to force the size of images where the default 180px is too small for a reader to conclusively identify just what is going on in the photo. It's the reason why I had to increase the size of some of North Carolina-class battleship's images. :) Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Thanks to MBK for pointing out you got back to me. I'm happy now, and my net thing seems to be not there, so I offer my support. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:02, 5 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.