Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2012/Failed

Failed

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

---

• Not promoted. There appear to be issues with this article that cannot be addressed within the timescale of an ACR. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

School of Advanced Military Studies

Nominator(s): Airborne84 (talk)

This article has gone through a Featured Article review and a Good Article review. I believe I have addressed the problems that require fixing. An editor during the Featured Article process recommended an assessment here. Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: G'day and welcome to Milhist ACR. Before I start a review, can you please clarify the status of the article's GA review? It appears to still be active, based on the listing at WP:GAN. Have you addressed the issues listed by the GAN reviewer? If so, it is probably best for you to comment on the GAN review page and let them know. That way they can finalise their review and either pass it or fail it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll ask the reviewer to close it out. It was his first GA review. At the bottom he said it was a fail at the time. However, I did address his comments after the review. I'll leave a note here when it's closed out. Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The GA review is closed out. The article is ready for review here. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 09:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: I have only taken a quick look at the article, but these are the things that stand out to me at first glance:
  • in the lead, "SAMS planners have supported every major military campaign" --> "every major military campaign that the US has undertaken"?

  Clarified "U.S." military campaigns. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  • is there a citation for this: "a second year away from the force to attend a school that had not yet proved its value in combat"?

  No, but I think this is relatively uncontroversial. It's identified that the school takes another year, and the next paragraph identifies that the first test in combat was yet to come. Unfortunately, the original source stated that, "This early in the development of SAMS, attending the School was still regarded as 'a slightly chancy thing to sign up for.' " with no elaboration. I saw the wording in the article as a transition passage as oppposed to abruptly ending the sentence with no explanation. If you think this is an issue, the wording can be deleted. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  A-class is meant to be just below FA, thus everything in the article should be referenced. As such, I'd suggest removing this if it can't be referenced. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  I removed the unreferenced words. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  • is there a citation for this: "This applies to both the AMSP and AOASF programs. In support of this mission, SAMS's leaders view AMSP as a three-phase program: (1) military intermediate level education at the United States Army Command and General Staff School (CGSS) or equivalent, (2) AMSP, and (3) a tour as an operational planner in the force."?

  No. I adjusted the wording to remove the attribution to SAMS' leaders. The new wording is a vanilla summary of what the last sections of the article describe. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  My suggestion then is to simply add the sources used in the last sections as references for this. You could use WP:NAMEDREFS if you want to avoid extra citations. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  I removed the sentence. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  • is there a citation for this: "Students from the United States Department of State can also be found at the school."?

  I added one. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  • is there a citation for this: "and the focus of the course shifted toward the strategic level of war"?

  Probably not a published one. But I thought it was a reasonable way of stating what actually happened in light of following material such as: one of the goals of AOASF is to create "Creative leaders who can solve complex-adaptive problems at the strategic and theater-strategic levels of conflict." But if this passage is not reasonable without a citation, it can be removed. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  Per my point above about A-class being just below FA. I'd suggest removing this if it can't be referenced. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  I provided a reference. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  • why is note # 52 different to the others?

  Changed. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  • title: "The Course" --> "Course";

  Fixed. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  • capitalisation: "Notable Graduates" --> "Notable graduates" per WP:Section caps;

  Fixed. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  • "File:School of Advanced Military Studies (crest).png": I think the source on this should be more specific if possible. For instance, was the image obtained from a website, or a book or magazine? If so, the url should be added, or the book title and page, etc. Currently, the source is just generically identified as "United States government";

  Clarified source. I checked WP:IMAGE and think the new source listed aligns with the guidance there. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, I think that is ok. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  • "File:Eisenhower Hall - October 2012.jpg": as above. Is there a url source, or a book etc? Currently just generically listed as "United States Army";

  Clarified source. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  Ok. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  • "File:Classroom Activities, School of Advanced Military Studies, Fort Leavenworth, 2 November 2010.jpg": as above.

  Clarified source. It is possible for me to list the Flickr page where this and the Eisenhower Hall photo are online, but I think that will just raise unnecessary questions. The Flickr page lists the images as copyrighted. However, the photographer assured me that the photos are in the public domain. Since he is a USG employee who took the photos in the normal course of his duties, the images are not subject to copyright. In any case, WP:IMAGE states that enough information should be listed for someone to verify the copyright information (in this case the fact that they are public domain). Anyone contacting the Fort Leavenworth PAO office can do that easily, so I think that satisfies the source requirement. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  Seems fair, I'm not an image expert, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  • when these issues are rectified, I will come back and have a closer look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for your time! --Airborne84 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  • the duplicate link checker tool identifies a couple of potentially overlinked terms: Command and General Staff School, United States Army War College;

  I removed the redundant Wikilinks. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  • "The United States Central Command requested planners from SAMS". When was this?

  I identified the timeframe. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  • what is a "reachback planner"? This should probably be clarified as it seems like jargon;

  I removed the word. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  • can ISSNs and/or ISBNs be added in the Bibliography for the Baker, Banach, Brown, Benson, Goble, High, Kretchik, Naylor, Romjue, Scales, Stewart, Wass de Czege and West works? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  Baker: added; Banach: added; Brown: has only Library of Congress Cataloging and a Center for Military History publication number; Benson: none available; Goble: none available because it is a monograph/thesis; High: added; Kretchik: added; Naylor: added; Romjue: has only Library of Congress Cataloging information; Scales: added; Stewart: same as Brown; Wass de Czege: two of three added. The report does not have an ISBN; West: added. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose My comments from the FAC don't appear to have been actioned: this article is still sourced to publications associated with this facility, and it isn't neutral. The article is also rather heavy on military jargon. Nick-D (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It would help me to make improvements if you could be more specific. I'm sure you don't mean that the use of a Command and General Staff College source by itself is POV. I suspect you are concerned with specific passages that may appear to promote the school from those sources. I crossreferenced the Command and General Staff College sources with passages in the article and found that most of the information from these sources appears in the "The course" and the "Curricula" section. But, after reviewing those sections, I see what seems to be mostly plain vanilla information. Could you provide a few examples of passages that you feel promote a POV? A couple of examples of military jargon that could be modified would be helpful as well. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I do think that the very heavy reliance on sources published by this school or directly related to it raises neutrality issues alone, especially as the main source is a "commemorative history" published by the school - such works tend to celebrate the successes of the institution they're commemorating, and are not neutral. Please see my comments in the FAC for more detail - the flat statement that graduates from this school were responsible for planning the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq really stands out given what a disaster this was: surely the school would have taken some criticism if its graduates were responsible for what happened in Iraq. Almost all the sources in the very positive 'Contributions' section were published by the school or are closely related to it. The article also still doesn't provide any real detail on what it is that this school teaches and how it goes about doing so. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. (1) I think I can address the last one about detail on what the school teaches, and that's a very reasonable point. I did read your comments on the FAC page again, and (2) regarding the sourcing, that puts the article in a challenging situation. Much of this information is not available in other published sources. To simply remove it will gut the article and almost certainly cause it to fall short of meeting A-class criterion A2 and FA criterion 1b. As an alternative, is it possible to retain the plain facts from these sources while addressing specific passages that might contribute to POV? (3) Perhaps you can give me some advice on how to proceed on the criticism section. I believe I did a fairly thorough literature review, enlisting the help of Fort Leavenworth's Combined Arms Research Library in ensuring it was comprehensive. I can check through the sources again, but I do not remember encountering any published criticism of the school other than some concerns in the school's early days about affecting officers' timelines (which I included in the article). I also did not find any published criticism of SAMS or its students regarding Iraq planning or planning of other mentioned campaigns. I am happy to include criticism of the school or its students since I understand that all notable points of view must be included in an article to avoid POV. But what options do we have if there is no published criticism? I suppose it's possible that I missed some, so if you are aware of some published criticism and can point me to it, I'll be more than happy to include it in the article. For my part, I will look carefully through the dissertation written by Benson on SAMS for anything on this, since I did not read it in its entirety in my lit review.

Again, I'm happy to make changes to the article to improve it, and I'm sure, given your history here, your comments are reasonable. I'm just generally at a loss as to how to proceed on 2 and 3 above and could use some advice. Thanks again for your time. --Airborne84 (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources aligned to the school can be used to support for statements of fact, but not not opinion as is the case at present (note that according to this, Bensen was the director of SAMS, so his writing on the topic contains an obvious conflict of interest). If independent sources on the successes and failures of this institution don't exist, I'm afraid that it limits the scope for this to be able to reach A class status. I'd suggest trolling through works analyzing the planning of the recent wars the US has fought (for instance, quite a few books and journal articles on the Iraq War discuss how the failings of the US military's professional education program contributed to bad planning and bad tactics in the early years of the war, and how the lessons of the war have - quite impressively - been institutionalized since then). Nick-D (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

As some starters, Tom Rick's blog The Best Defence is a RS which has a focus on the professional standards and education of the US military. The following New York Times stories also look useful: [1], [2] (which I think is an excerpt from a book), [3], [4]. This influential article doesn't single out SAMS, but is quite critical of the US Army's entire professional education system. This article also appears to have some material on SAMS. Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be a shame if an article had a glass ceiling on Wikipedia due to a paucity of sources not related to the subject itself. I'll look at what you recommended, and take another look at the literature. If the works you mention talk about SAMS directly, I'll be happy to use them. If they only discuss general campaign planning failures or challenges in the US military's PME, it would violate WP:SYNTH for me to list them in the article and imply that they bear on SAMS. In any case, thanks for your advice. Best, --Airborne84 (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Nick-D, I looked through the sources you listed. SAMS is mentioned briefly in them, but there is no link between SAMS and planning failures. There is also no link identified in any of the sources I turned up in my literature review. Can you provide a more in-depth explanation about how we can address shortfalls in military campaign planning or professional military education in relation to SAMS when there appear to be no published sources that provide that link? I don't see any way to avoid WP:SYNTH here and am unsure about how to address this particular concern. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I am also ready to address the concern about the article not providing detail about what the school teaches and how it accomplishes that. But the sources available to do that are those you have pointed to as POV since they are published by the Command and General Staff College. I am hesitant to add the material if it only adds to your concern about the article's POV. Please advise. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the article has had a CE and the whole article reads like a press release for the school. I support NickD here - its weird so many citations were attributed to a single source (book? article?) which doesn't have an identifier (no ISBN/OCLC#...I can't find it in Worldcat), and was written by one of the school's directors. 1/3 of the citations are from that source. Probably time to pull this review and rewrite. Kirk (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Material from the school is an OK source for what it teaches and how teaching is delivered. I guess that if no sources directly link SAMS to problems with the US Army's recent campaigns we can't draw that link, but I remain concerned about the overall positive tone of the article. Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand the concern about the citations from the 25-year history of the school. If those passages were replaced with similar (but probably not exactly the same) passages sourced from Kevin Benson's dissertation (the same author, but oversight by a dissertation committee from the University of Kansas), would that be acceptable as a source? --Airborne84 (talk) 07:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No, as there's no getting around the problems with the former director of this institution writing a history of it (I'm surprised that the University of Kansas permitted him to write a PhD thesis on this topic). Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

No consensus to promote at this time. Anotherclown (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Troop engagements of the American Civil War, 1861

Nominator(s): Wild Wolf (talk)

I am seeking to pass this article for AL class. It is a listing of American Civil War engagements for the year 1861. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I think the references are too bundled, making specific details of those huge paragraphs hard to verify. Would like to see:

1. ^ Foote, pp. 48–55.
2. ^ Foote, pp. 69, 78–81, 140–141.
3. ^ Foote, pp. 86–88, 115–120.
4. ^ Foote, pp. 90–95, 98.
5. ^ Josephy, pp. 44–51.

broken down into more in-line citations, to support individual sentences, esp. those with dates/numbers/stats. Other than that, all seems fine.

Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to bring the sources I used with me (I can only edit Wikipedia from libraries), but I will change this the first opportunity I get during the next week (unless some else does it first). Wild Wolf (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions

• "File:Battle of Wilsons Creek.png": the source on this is currently listed as Wikipedia, which should be changed to the book or website from where it was originally scanned/uploaded;
• is there any way to make the casualties column in the table sort from highest to lowest?
• the Civil War Reference web citations seem inconsistently presented. For instance compare ""Civil War Reference, Athens, Missouri page". History. Civil War Reference. Retrieved September 22, 2011." with ""Civil War Reference". History. Civil War Reference, Hunter's Farm, Missouri page. Retrieved September 22, 2011.";
• not sure about the presentation here (seems inconsistent with the other entries): "Union One soldier was killed and five others wounded". AustralianRupert (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the Wilson's Creek file was uploaded by Hohum, so I left a question on his talk page asking for help on the source. Also went through the web cites and casualties to change them to a consistent presentation. Wild Wolf (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for making those changes. To clarify, my point about making the casualty column sortable hasn't been dealt with. What I am suggesting is making the table sort in a manner that would allow a reader to sort that casualties so that they could quickly find out what battle was the most costly. Currently the table does not sort like this. To be honest, I don't even know if it is possible, but it seems like something a reader might want to be able to do. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• As I mentioned before, a troop is a unit of cavalry, or a generic body of soldiers and it a confusing title since you mean the latter. If we were talking about Naval combat we'd call this 'Naval Actions of the American Civil War, 1861' . While I don't know the equivalent term for land combat its probably not 'Troop engagement' - there's no ngrams for that phrase in google books. 'Battle' is what the park service uses even though it has multiple meanings [5]. How have you researched this?
• The table is a tremendous improvement!
• Can I suggest you don't do all 5 of these simultaneously? Withdraw the other 4 and we can hammer out the details on this one. Kirk (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I posted a comment at the Milhist talk page concerning the name change. Wild Wolf (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

CommentsOppose

• The initial paragraphs would benefit from section headings, perhaps by theater. Big blocks of narrative text at present.
• Because the table is sortable, linking needs to be universal so that regardless of how a reader sorts the table the link is there. See the example at Help:Sorting#Numeric_sort_for_BC.2FAD_years.
• The Losses column is unclear. They appear to be a combination of killed, wounded, missing, captured, but in many cases it isn't clear what we are talking about.
• Your use of the "location, state" format for "Engagement" appears to fly in the face of common names for these engagements and what readers would look for. For example, most people would expect to see Battle of Fort Sumter not "Fort Sumter, Maryland" and Battle of Hoke's Run, not "Hoke's Run, West Virginia", but this becomes really problematic when faced with "Manassas, Virginia" when you would expect to see First Battle of Bull Run.
• I agree with MarcusBritish re: the need to break down the scope of citations.
• You might consider breaking down the table into one per theater, as far as I am aware they didn't have much of an overlap (although ACW is not my strong point).
• Checks out for dabs, external links, alt text and redirects. Earwig crashed mid check, but I don't see anything that jumps out.

Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Given the lack of response in three weeks, there is too much on this review for me to support, so opposing. Sorry about that. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

No consensus to promote at this time. Anotherclown (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Troop engagements of the American Civil War, 1862

Nominator(s): Wild Wolf (talk)

I am seeking to pass this article for AL class. It is a listing of American Civil War engagements for the year 1862. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I think the references are too bundled, making specific details of those huge paragraphs hard to verify. Would like to see:

1. ^ Foote, pp. 399, 444–450, 481–514.
2. ^ Foote, pp. 590, 633–641, 668–669, 703, 754; Kennedy, pp. 144–148.
3. ^ Foote, pp. 305, 319–321, 333–348, 381–385.
4. ^ Foote, pp. 390, 558, 572–575, 732–740.
5. ^ Foote, pp. 351–360.
6. ^ Foote, pp. 278–293.
7. ^ Foote, pp. 296–305.

broken down into more in-line citations, to support individual sentences, esp. those with dates/numbers/stats. Other than that, all seems fine.

Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

No consensus to promote at this time. Anotherclown (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Troop engagements of the American Civil War, 1863

Nominator(s): Wild Wolf (talk)

I am seeking to pass this article for AL class. It is a listing of American Civil War engagements for the year 1863. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I think the references are too bundled, making specific details of those huge paragraphs hard to verify. Would like to see:

1. ^ Kennedy, pp. 197–199, 202–213, 251–259.
2. ^ Kennedy, pp. 147–173, 181–184, 225–231, 241–247.
3. ^ Kennedy, pp. 139, 179–180, 232.

broken down into more in-line citations, to support individual sentences, esp. those with dates/numbers/stats. Other than that, all seems fine.

Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

No consensus to promote at this time. Anotherclown (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Troop engagements of the American Civil War, 1864

Nominator(s): Wild Wolf (talk)

I am seeking to pass this article for AL class. It is a listing of American Civil War engagements for the year 1864. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I think the references are too bundled, making specific details of those huge paragraphs hard to verify. Would like to see:

1. ^ Symonds, pp. 76, 79.
2. ^ Trudeau, p. 341.
3. ^ Symonds, p. 83.
4. ^ Kennedy, pp. 300–303; Symonds, p. 89.
5. ^ Kennedy, pp. 313, 323.
6. ^ Symonds, pp. 91–93.
7. ^ Sword, pp. 269–270, 281, 425–426.
8. ^ Josephy, pp. 165, 188, 201–209.

broken down into more in-line citations, to support individual sentences, esp. those with dates/numbers/stats. Other than that, all seems fine.

Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

No consensus to promote at this time. Anotherclown (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Troop engagements of the American Civil War, 1865

Nominator(s): Wild Wolf (talk)

I am seeking to pass this article for AL class. It is a listing of American Civil War engagements for the year 1865. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I think the references are too bundled, making specific details of those huge paragraphs hard to verify. Would like to see:

1. ^ Fonvielle, pp. 294–296, 302, 314–316.
2. ^ Fonvielle, pp. 332, 341, 345, 359, 382, 428.
3. ^ Calkins, pp. 29–36, 43–53.
4. ^ Calkins, pp. 63, 75, 86–91, 171–179.
5. ^ Hughes, pp. 1–5, 21–22, 34, 38, 148, 163–165, 209–211.
6. ^ Bradley, pp. 27–28, 39–40, 55–64, 81, 121, 215–217.
7. ^ Trudeau, pp. 10–13, 258–259.
8. ^ Trudeau, pp. 6, 178–179, 184.
9. ^ Trudeau, pp. 259–261.
10. ^ Trudeau, pp. 340–341, 360.
11. ^ Trudeau, pp. 369–370.

broken down into more in-line citations, to support individual key sentences, esp. those with dates/numbers/stats. Other than that, all seems fine.

Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article Withdrawn Adamdaley (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me?

Although this is primarily a biological article, it contains a fair amount of military history, which Dank has kindly copy edited. I don't need any more history, since it will make the article unbalanced, and I've no objection to losing a bit. I take full responsibility for the non-military content, so I'm basically looking to improve the prose and referencing enough for your A rating before heading to FAC. Thanks in advance for any reviews you can provide for someone here (almost) under false pretences. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments: Welcome to Milhist ACR. This is not really a topic I feel comfortable giving an opinion on (content wise) as I have no specific knowledge. Anyway, I will focus on small things. Hopefully it helps in someway:

• overall I think the level of referencing is good, but this appears to be missing a reference: "long found on the present-day coast at Titchwell date from a time when it was 60–70 km (37–43 mi) from the sea. Other flint tools have been found dating from the Upper Paleolithic to the Neolithic."

• Moved sentence, forgot ref, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• inconsistent terminology: First World War, WWI, Second World War, WWII;

• Fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• in the References, some of the short citations end in full stops, but others don't. For instance compare # 15 with # 16. This should be consistent;

• Thought I'd got all these, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• in the Cited texts section, is there a year of publication for "Gorski, Richard (ed). Roles of the Sea in Medieval England"?

• oops, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• in the Cited texts section, some of the titles use title case, but others don't. For instance compare Gorski to Gray;

• done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• the duplicate link checker tool reveals a number of potentially overlinked terms: Mesolithic, North Sea, Brancaster, Blakeney Point, Scolt Head Island, Norfolk Wildlife Trust, Special Protection Area, Morston, A149 road;

• Fixed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• "...and the remains of a Blenheim bomber were found at the north of the island" --> when were the remains found?

• Added 2004

• slightly repetitious: "The military camp held 160 men and was later used to hold prisoners of war" (held and hold --> perhaps reword slightly);

• fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Titchwell Marsh RSPB, Cley Marshes NWT and Holkham NNR each attracts 100,000 or more..." --> "Titchwell Marsh RSPB, Cley Marshes NWT and Holkham NNR each attract 100,000 or more..." AustralianRupert (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for review, amazing how many things I thought I'd checked and still missed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• I'm not an environmental scientist either, so mainly copyediting points:
• "The SSSI is economically important to the area because of the the tourists it attracts for birdwatching and other outdoor activities, and the combination of sensitive wildlife sites and large numbers of visitors means that management is necessary to protect vulnerable sites." - I'd unpack this sentence into two after "outdoor activities"

• I'm not sure about this, seems a bit choppy when split. Done for now, see if any other comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The SSSI starts at the eastern boundary of The Wash SSSI between Old Hunstanton and Holme-next-the-Sea, and runs east for about 43 km (27 mi) to Kelling. The southern boundary runs roughly west to east except where it detours around towns and villages, and never crosses the A149 coast road." - I've got to admit that I couldn't really picture the shape of the SSSI from this description at all.

• The SSSI is a long, narrow strip of coast —. With the infobox mao, should be enough? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• " are "among the best in Europe ... flora is exceptionally diverse"." - given that this is an opinion/assessment and a direct quote, the article probably needs to explain whose it is.

• the SSSI notification document states Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The latter two sites are also important as structures consisting mainly of shingle ridges. " - I wasn't sure from this why being made from shingle ridges made them important.

• for geomorphology research purposes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Woodland is limited in this coastal strip," - it wasn't clear what coastal strip is meant here (the whole SSSI, or the land in the previous sentence?)

• Made clear it's the SSSI

• "Both Modern and..." - capitalisation of modern seems wrong to me

• Me too, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• "To 1000 AD" section. It's all linked, but the mixture of dates (e.g. "10,000 years ago"), events (e.g. "the last glaciation") and geological periods (e.g. "the Mesolithic") and archaeological periods (e.g. "the Bronze Age") doesn't necessarily make it easy to follow time-wise. If you don't know when the Bronze Age begins in Norfolk, for example, calling something "rare Bronze Age survivals" doesn't tell you much about when they were made. My advice would be to give a date for the periods when using them.

• Added periods for the various -lithics and Bronze Age (now piped to Bronze Age Britain). I've assumed that people roughly know the later stuff, Roman etc, to avoid a clutter of dates Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• "As the ice retreated during the Mesolithic, the sea level rose, filling what is now the North Sea, and bringing the Norfolk coastline much closer to its present position." is repeated twice

• Oops Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• "the makers of the long blades " - I'm assuming these are the blades in the previous paragraph, but it doesn't actually say in that they were long blades.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Medieval and recent" section heading. "recent" seemed like an odd heading, as it barely touches the 20th century at all, let alone the 21st - would "early modern" be more appropriate?

• Medieval to nineteenth century — is that OK? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Four spigot mortar bases found at Holme dunes " - bases can mean two things in this context; I'm guessing you mean the base-plate of a mortar, rather than a military base for mortars. Worth clarifying, as non-military folks would probably think of the latter.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• "There were no new fortifications along this coast at the start of WWII," - this is a long paragraph, and could usefully break at "Military activities continued..."

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The large number of visitors can have negative effects..." Much of this paragraph is in the conditional, with lots of "can"s. It wasn't clear to me if this meant that these negative effects were happening on occasion ("are sometimes having negative effects") or if there was a potential risk ("could have negative effects"). Hchc2009 (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Tweaked to indicate that it is a problem Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time to review, and for your useful comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for producing a good "cross-over" article! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Not promoted. Closed because progress appears unlikely to be made within the timeframe of the ACR, but without prejudice to a new review when the primary author has time to devote to it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Eighth Army Ranger Company

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments at this stage:

• An interesting unit.
• "Conceived as a counter force for North Korean (NK) commandos..." Would it still be accurate if you said "Intended to combat the North Korean (NK)..."? I'm trying to think of a way to avoid having to say "counter force" early in the lead.
  • Reworded
• "as only 10 Rangers walked away from the battle unharmed." We'd all know what this means, but some pedant is bound to say that this means that some Rangers could have driven away etc.!
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• "Organization" section. Because this started with "The Eighth Army Ranger Company was created as a "test" unit..." I found it a bit odd - the next section then revisits the origins. I wondered if this section might live better somewhere after "origins"?
  • Moved things around so that "Origins" comes before "Organization" now. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• "a unique initial organization of 3 officers and 73 enlisted men" - unique to who? (e.g. US Army, US ranger units, any military in the world?)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• "The unit was designated the 8213th Army Unit from a program developed by U.S. Army scientists in World War II..." I'm not sure the bit that goes "from a program" is right. "by a program"? "using a program"?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• "All U.S. Army Ranger units had been disbanded..." Due to the ordering, this is repeating what was said a couple of paras back.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• "felt recreating Ranger units was essential to begin a counteroffensive" - as in the recreation was the counteroffensive, or do you mean "essential to beginning a counteroffensive"?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• "North Korean operatives were known to be hiding in the area, which the Army treated as an opposing force in the Ranger training." does this mean that they used fictional NK operatives as an opposing force, or that they used the real NK operatives as an actual opposing force?
  • The second one. They used real enemies in "practice" training. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• "An estimated platoon of Chinese made the first attack." I knew what this meant, but "an estimated platoon" felt really odd; "an estimated platoon-sized force"?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• " several pre-sighted artillery concentrations" - worth wikilinking or footnoting what this means.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• "who was killed instantly by a mortar" - "mortar shell"? (again, someone will point out that mortars rarely kill anyone...)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• "Analysis" How substantial was Chae's thesis? In the UK, an MA wouldn't be a serious contribution to academic debate. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I suppose it's the same here, but the thesis was very thorough and easily found in the Army's online archives. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment: That is normally true, as an MA thesis does not normally contain a significant amount of original research. However, there have been some important exceptions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Another one - "Veritas Part 1 2010, p. 37" - shouldn't we be citing the author of the article rather than just the publication? (Piasecki wrote the article concerned I think). Hchc2009 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • As I used information from all over the magazine, I thought it best to be treated as one publication, though every article has a different author. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • One dab link [6]:
    • Land navigation
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • External links all check out [7] (no action required).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [8] (suggestion only - not an ACR criteria).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images are all PD and seem appropriate for article.
  • Prose is awkward here: "It was best known for its defense of Hill 205 during the Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River from overwhelming Chinese attack, an action which shattered the company as all but 10 of the 51 Rangers on the hill became casualties." Consider instead → "It was best known for its defense of Hill 205 from overwhelming Chinese attack during the Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River, an action which shattered the company as all but 10 of the 51 Rangers on the hill became casualties."
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Repetitive language here: "Subsequent analysis by military historians has analyzed the economy of force...", consider instead → "Subsequent analysis by military historians has focused on the economy of force..."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Is the capitalisation correct here: "G-3 Operations miscellaneous division"? It seems like a proper noun to me which should probably be capitalised like this: "G-3 Operations Miscellaneous Division".
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "3 officers and 73 enlisted men" → "three officers and 73 enlisted men..." per WP:MOSNUM.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The "Organisation" section seems repeatitively worded and verbose, and you use a number of sentences and paragraphs which could probably merged. For instance you write:
    • "The Eighth Army Ranger Company was created as a "test" unit, the first of its kind created by the United States Army to experiment with the concept of bringing back Army Ranger units; small light infantry special forces units which specialized in infiltration and irregular warfare. The Eighth Army Ranger Company was created with an initial organization unique to U.S. Army units of 3 officers and 73 enlisted men. The unit was organized based on the Table of Organization and Equipment documents of Ranger units in World War II. The Eighth Army Ranger Company was organized as a company of two platoons."
    • Consider instead: "The Eighth Army Ranger Company was created as a "test" unit, the first of its kind created by the United States Army to experiment with the concept of bringing back Army Ranger units; small light infantry special forces units which specialized in infiltration and irregular warfare. It was created with an initial organization unique to U.S. Army units of three officers and 73 enlisted men and was organized as a company of two platoons based on the Table of Organization and Equipment documents of Ranger units in World War II."
      • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This is awkward to me: "The Rangers' first assignment was to probe north with the division's reconnaissance elements to Poun in search of pockets of guerrillas which had been isolated during the UN breakout from Pusan." Consider instead → "The Rangers' first assignment was to probe north to Poun with the division's reconnaissance elements in search of pockets of guerrillas which had been isolated during the UN breakout from Pusan."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This could be improved: "The troops rapidly moved 175 miles (282 km) to Kaesong and eliminated the last resistance of the North Koreans south of the 38th Parallel...", consider: "The troops rapidly moved 175 miles (282 km) to Kaesong where they eliminated the last North Korean resistance south of the 38th Parallel..."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I question the terminology here: "ahead of the main division force...", might this be more correct as "ahead of the divisional main body"? An advance is usually conducted with a series of screens, guards, the main body and flank and rear elements (suggestion only).
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This seems redundant: "During the day on 23 November...", perhaps consider "On 23 November..." (suggestion only).
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I question the terminology used here: "...the company moved out on time in the center flank...", be definition a flank is not a central position (it is a position on a side, either left or right, or can be described using a cardinal point). Could you pls clarify what you mean here?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Ranger" should be capitalised here I think: "The mortars killed one ranger..."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This is awkward to me: "At that time, the tanks of the 89th mistakenly opened fire on the Rangers, causing several friendly fire casualties before Puckett was able to signal them to stop. Two Rangers were killed by this friendly fire." Consider instead → "At that time the tanks of the 89th mistakenly opened fire on the Rangers, causing a number of casualties including two killed, before Puckett was able to signal them to stop." (suggestion only)
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "On both flanks, Task Force Dolvin troops encountered sporadic resistance throughout the morning, but were able to capture objectives..." → "On both flanks, Task Force Dolvin troops encountered sporadic resistance throughout the morning, but were able to capture their objectives."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Repeating the date here is redundant also: "The Rangers established a perimeter on the position and spent the day of 25 November fortifying the position." Consider instead → "The Rangers established a perimeter on the position and spent the remainder of the day fortifying the position."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This is awkward and somewhat informal to me: "That evening, all along the Korean front, UN troops were unexpectedly slammed by the Chinese Second Phase Offensive; 300,000 Chinese troops swarmed into Korea against the unprepared UN forces.[14][26] Several kilometers away on the Rangers' left flank, the U.S. 27th Infantry Regiment's E Company was hit with heavy Chinese attack at 21:00, alerting the Rangers to a pending attack." Consider "The Chinese Second Phase Offensive was unexpectedly launched that evening with 300,000 Chinese troops streaming into Korea along the entire front, catching UN forces unprepared. Several kilometers away on the Rangers' left flank, the U.S. 27th Infantry Regiment's E Company was hit with a heavy Chinese attack at 21:00, alerting the Rangers to a pending attack." (suggestion only)
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Rangers" should be captialised here too: "Chinese attack were unable to assist the rangers..."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This is not a sentence: "advancing to within hand grenade range."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "They were ordered to fix bayonets in preparation for the next attack." Who was? The Chinese or the Rangers?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "The heavy casualties on Hill 205 rendered the company combat ineffective,[30] and it was capable of conducting only routine patrols or as a security force for division headquarters elements for the next several weeks." Consider instead → "The heavy casualties on Hill 205 rendered the company ineffective, and it was only capable of conducting routine patrols or for use as a security force for divisional headquarters elements for several weeks."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "The company's next and final mission came on 27 March..." → "The company's final mission came on 27 March..." (suggestion only)
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Missing word here: "Rangers began their advance at 22:00 and arrived at the village at 01:00..."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Overuse of the word "contended" or "contend" in the "Analysis" section.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Is the terminology correct here: "Two of the Rangers who rescued Puckett, Private First Class Billy G. Walls and Sergeant David L. Pollock, were awarded the Silver Star Medal for their actions..."? Specifically I think its a "Silver Star" not a "Silver Star Medal".
  • As far as I know, Silver Star and Silver Star Medal are interchangeable for the sake of clarity, as are Bronze Star and Bronze Star Medal. —Ed!^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Anotherclown (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• That's everything. Thanks for such a thorough review. —Ed!^(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks good. Adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    • After a second look at the article I feel there are actually a few more points that probably need attention:
      • "The next day, 25 November, Task Force Dolvin resumed its advance..." - the previous paragraph started on 23 Nov, what happened on the 24th? Pls check the dates here. I know I have copy-edited this section so I hope I haven't introduced an error.
        • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
      • "Ross ordered a platoon to conduct a stealth attack into the village" – which platoon (a history of a company should probably be detailed enough to identify which platoon was involved in this action IMO)? Anotherclown (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Since my original comments some inconsistency in abbreviations has been introduced to the article - in places you use "U.S." but in others "NK" and "UN". Pls use a common format (I suggest "US", "UN" and "NK"). Anotherclown (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Not per the standard prose I've been told at FAC. They specify "U.S." and "UN" and have made me change my prose to that format in the past. —Ed!^(talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. See my previous reviews of your articles for how to handle these problems. - Dank (push to talk)

• "The company saw a number of other infiltration and combat missions through late 1950":
• "The United States (U.S.)" [I got the first one]
• "newly-commissioned"
• "quick selection process, Puckett selected"
• "was formally organized 25 August 1950"
• "to Pusan, South Korea aboard the ferry"
• "the Ranger training. The Rangers trained"
• "The Rangers trained 60 hours per week and ran 5 miles (8.0 km) each day and frequently held 20 miles (32 km) speed marches" (two problems) - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• "United States Army": In many places, there's no other army it could be, so anything more than army is redundant. Also, while it's fine to say United States rather than US or U.S. at the first occurrence when United States is part of the formal name of an organization, most organizations have a shortened form that's preferred after the first occurrence. The shortened forms usually don't include "United States"; they use US or U.S. or, usually, neither. Chicago 10.33 recommends US (but Garner's recommends U.S.) rather than United States in front of a noun, unless of course you're quoting someone or following established usage for a proper noun. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• In Organization, the entire first paragraph is duplicated by what follows.
• "the first of its kind created by the United States Army to experiment with the concept of bringing back Army Ranger units": I don't know what that means.
• "Army Ranger units; small light infantry special forces units which specialized in infiltration and irregular warfare."
• "60mm" (I don't have a problem with this myself, but usually they want 60 mm at FAC.)
• "designed randomized designations"
• "in order to fool enemy intelligence and prevent North Korean commanders from knowing anything about the unit": How does a number do that?
• "the unit. The unit ... unit ... unit"
• "This was a unique decision for the Eighth Army Ranger Company, as": This bit is redundant to what follows.
• Oppose. Needs a lot of work. I got down to Eighth Army Ranger Company#History. - Dank (push to talk) 00:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Dank - in light of your comments I have revisted this article and agree that it needs more work. In this my support above was probably premature. I have now done a copy edit of my own. Hopefully this has improved the situation somewhat, although I didn't directly address some of your comments as this is best left to the nominator I think. Ed - pls review my edits and change any you disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks much AC. I've always been proud of how easy-going our A-class process is and how hard we all work to push these articles through. But in this case, given the density of problems, and given that it's all stuff I've tried to be clear about for over two years, I think I'm going to have to admit defeat; it's not fair to the other writers for me to keep sinking this much time into these Korea articles, I'm going to have to start opposing instead. Ed!, if you could work with a regular co-nom who will handle at least the basics, the stuff that I mention in all your articles, before these get to A-class, that would be a big help, and don't beat yourself up (or me!) over this, different writers have different strengths. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
      • No worries - hopefully we can still get this one over the line with a bit more work. Anotherclown (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I made an attempt at fixing some of the issues listed above, and some other things I found. Ed, can you please check that I haven't overstated anything? Dan, does this alleviate your concerns, or do you think it needs a bit more work? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks much Rupert, you did get a bunch of them. Ed!, here are explanations for a few of the things I pointed out above:
• "seen great success", "see combat" and "saw frequent combat" are fine, because those are (in context) abstract nouns. "saw a steady stream of defeats" and "saw 164 days of continuous combat" (twice) are not uncommon uses of "saw", but it's not good writing, because "saw" distances the actor from the action, as in "The 1950s saw significant increases in average wages"; my understanding is that these battles were raw, up-close and personal. They didn't "see defeats", they were defeated, or pushed back.
• "The United States (U.S.)": I've never met a reader who didn't know what "U.S." means, and don't link United States, at least at A-class or FAC. There's a bit more explanation above, and there are still too many instances of "United States" in the article.
• "Following an informal and quick selection process, Puckett picked the men to fill out the company ...": Better than it was, but I'm still wondering why they needed to be picked after they had already been selected.
• "to join the Eighth Army Ranger Training Center, also newly formed, for seven weeks of specialized training. This took place at "Ranger Hill" near Kijang, where the unit trained", "in the Ranger training. Adopting training techniques that had been established during World War II, they trained", "12 either dropped out of training": You can get rid of roughly 5 instances of "train" there with no fear that the reader won't follow what you're saying.
• "the first of its kind created by the United States Army to experiment with the concept of bringing back Army Ranger units": I still don't know what that means. Maybe this? "This was an experimental re-creation of an Army Ranger unit, the first since the disbanding of the Ranger units at the end of World War II"
• "Army Ranger units; small light infantry special forces units which specialized in infiltration and irregular warfare." Still a sentence fragment; fix it by changing the semicolon to a colon.
• "in order to fool enemy intelligence and prevent North Korean commanders from knowing anything about the unit": I still don't know how a 4-digit number is capable of concealing all information about a unit from the enemy.
• "The unit was designated the 8213th Army Unit ... randomized designations to military units in order to ... prevent North Korean commanders from knowing anything about the unit. The unit was considered an ad hoc provisional unit, ... a temporary unit, akin to a task force. ... subsequent companies assumed the lineage of Ranger units from World War II, ... it prevented the company from accruing its own ... unit decorations." You can do without at least half of those instances of "unit".
• "This was a unique decision for the Eighth Army Ranger Company, as": This bit is redundant to what follows.
• Still opposing. I'd like to see a solution here that doesn't involve more and more of Rupert's and Anotherclown's time; I can't say of course what the best use of their time is, but I know they feel the same obligation I do to the A-class process as a whole, and for all of us to spend a disproportionate amount of time here doesn't strike me as a solution. Ed!, if you want to sink some time in and polish these up before they get to A-class, that would work, or if co-noms will do that, that would be great. - Dank (push to talk) 16:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • G'day, due to having a day off work, I had some time to do some more. I made a few more tweaks, but I will stop now. Some of what I did might be a bit too drastic, so I will leave it up to Ed now to finish/revert/polish as he sees fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Great work as always Rupert, particularly on the "train", "picked", and "4-digit number" points. - Dank (push to talk) 11:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ed! Not sure if you noticed them but I still have a couple of points outstanding above. Are you able to have a look at these pls? Anotherclown (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Sorry about the delay, I've been very busy in RL. I fixed your latest points. I'll try to get to Dank's as quickly as I can. —Ed!^(talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Cheers Ed, those changes look good. Anotherclown (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment: where do we stand with this article now? Given that the last edit was made to the article on 3 August, it is probably best to move to have this nomination closed as unsuccesful. I've tried my best to address the issues above to help out, but I haven't been completely successful. As Ed! doesn't appear to be active at the moment, it is probably best just to close this review and allow him to renominate when he becomes free again. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Not promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

List of World War I aces credited with 10 victories

Nominator(s): Georgejdorner: (talk)

I am nominating this list for A-Class review on behalf of George, who requests that it be assessed against the AL criteria (per these requests [9] and [10]). Note to co-ordinators: the credit for this list is all George's, I am only nominating it on his behalf as he was having trouble getting the html mark up to work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks to Rupert for his assistance. I have never before placed a list for A Class Review.

List is complete. References are both reliable and complete. Please read the Talk page concerning form of the citations.

Georgejdorner (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment some of the first occurences such as Luftstreitkräfte are not wiki-linked depending on how you sort the list by clicking in the column header. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments This looks pretty good, though I've got some comments and suggestion:

• The "victories" column appears unnecessary given that the only criterion for inclusion in the list is that the person was credited with exactly 10 victories
  • Indeed, I have toyed with the idea of eliminating this column. It would speed up loading time.
• The text at the start of the article appears to be boiler plate material - I'd suggest adding a short introductory para which introduces this article, and another para (or two) which discusses how rare it was for pilots to achieve this many kills.
  • The lead is on a template shared by all the World War I victory lists. After some years of editing and debate, Aerial victory standards of World War I was spun off into a separate article just to satisfy curiosity about how victories were accredited.
    • That might be the case, but this article needs to stand on its own feet. The lack of introductory text is off putting. Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
      • This is a list, not an article.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      • The template is already part of a Featured List. However, I have added two major articles at the top of the page so readers can satisfy their curiosity about victory standards, or about WWI aviation in general. Also added a bit of text addressing your point.
        • Sorry, but that doesn't address my comment at all: I think that the article needs an introductory paragraph explaining its scope (eg, "This is a list of all World War I aces who were credited credited with exactly ten victories..." and so on). Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
          • That will look a bit odd on the other 8 lists where aces won some other number of victories. A note as you wish will appear on all lists because it is on a template.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• The number of Canadians seems surprisingly high, and the number of French pilots is rather low. Do any sources discuss why this might have been the case? (eg, did the French take their highest-performing pilots off combat duties, keep bad records or have awful aircraft?).
  • The only explanation I have ever seen is an observation (usually by a boastful Canadian) that Canadians were grossly over-represented in aerial service, and consequently in the ace lists. On the other hand, the French used the strictest confirmation standards of any Allied air force while fighting under the same handicaps in confirmation that plagued the British, etc. But so what? This is a list, not an analytical article.
• Any statistical analysis of the data in this article would be useful (if only something like "40 percent of the aces who were credited with 10 kills during the war were British, etc").
  • I have never found any statistical analysis of the data. Given the state of the records after all these years and the unreliability of victory claims, it would probably prove a case of "Garbage in, garbage out".
    • OK, fair enough. Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Given that the RAAF wasn't formed until after WW1, Adrian Cole shouldn't be listed as having been a member of it here (though it is technically correct, of course, as he did serve with the RAAF after the war)
  • I listed all air forces a pilot belonged to, as a means of showing the influence they had upon aerial history post World War I.
    • A note to that effect should be included then. Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I might add, the column header of "Air Service(s)" is ambiguous, but does not limit the listings to WWI.
        • Given that the scope of the article is the World War I combat victories of these aces, it's a bit odd for it to go beyond this. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Are all these pilots really universally credited with exactly ten kills? It seems surprising that the number of kills aren't disputed for any of them. Did any have 'half' shares of kills as part of their total.
  • Almost every ace's victory score is disputable. There were no fractionated victory awards during World War I; the rule was either a victory or none. Both of these points should have been clear to you if you had read Aerial victory standards of World War I.
    • If the figures for the various aces are of differing reliability, this should be noted in the article as it's obviously highly relevant. I haven't read that other article, and readers of this list shouldn't have to do so to learn that information (which could be easily summarised here in a paragraph). Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Community consensus is that the discussion of overclaiming of aerial victories should be covered at Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories during World War II. I am very much at odds with this, but defer to consensus.
      • Added short para concerning accuracy of list.
        • I might well be missing something, but I can't see that change. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
          • "The scores presented in the list cannot be definitive, but are based on itemized lists that are the best available sources of information. Loss of records by mischance and the passage of time complicates reconstructing the actual count for given aces."Georgejdorner (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
            • OK, but seeing as there are significant problems with the content of the primary sources themselves due to the issue of over-counting and differing procedures, that doesn't really help readers of this article. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• I'd suggest including translations of the foreign-language air corps names somewhere in the article.
  • There is context for understanding these foreign names.
    • I don't think that there is, especially are there appear to be direct translations of the names. I'm not hugely fussed about this comment though. Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Should the pilots for whom we currently don't have articles be red linked? (eg, are they assumed to be notable?)Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • All notable aces on this list have at least a stub. Unlinked names are of those aces who won no honors for their feats.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • OK, fair enough. Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Sorry, I'm moving to oppose due to the referencing issue discussed below, and my concerns with the article's lack of an introduction and material which clearly explains the limitations of the data being presented here. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comments Oppose - until the reference situation is straightened out.
  • George's suggestion to include translations for the foreign-language unit names is a good one; it might be easiest to work that into the lead so it doesn't mess with the table sorting.
    • Suggestion is not mine, but Nick-D's.
  • I agree that the kill count column is redundant and should probably go, though I understand if you want to keep it so it remains in identical format to the other lists in the series.
  • You don't need both 10 and 13 digit ISBNs
    • Last I heard, the ISBN system was still in transition for 10 to 13 digit ISBNs. I include both to expedite retrieval of the books.
      • ISBN-13 was created in 2007 and superseded ISBN-10, and sites like Worldcat handle both. There's no need to include the old 10-digit system.
        • I was not aware that the supersession was complete. The last I heard, the change-over from one to another was still in progress.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Since you also have the full bibliographical entries below, does it make sense to use the full title in the footnotes?
  • What style are you using for the references? As far as I know (and my experience is limited to Chicago, APA, and MLA), the author's name should always come first.
  • References also need publisher locations.
    • If you had read the Talk page notes as recommended, you would have read the rationale for the form of the citations. The same half dozen people write most of the serious research while in various groupings, and give the resulting books similar titles. A quick browse through the bibliography will show you that. A quick glance at the cites at an unrevised List of World War I aces credited with 15–19 victories will show you the mind-numbing baffling result. Therefore, in the spirit of BE BOLD, I came up with a more intelligible form of citation (in this context) that multi-refs a couple of hundred cites to just ten. If I seem to over-reach with a complete book title included in the cites, it is a quest for clarity.
      • If the problem is that the same authors wrote several books used in the article, see here for a good way to handle it (specifically the books written by Scheina). As for the ref titles, you can use {{sfn}}, which links each footnote to the corresponding reference entry to avoid confusion. See its implementation here, for instance. In this case, the best way to differentiate the citations from the same author is to use the "Last name, Short Title, page number" format (see here for an example). You can also use the year of publication instead of the short title, since as far as I can tell, none of the books written by the authors in question overlap. The footnotes should also at least have the page ranges. I'm afraid I can't support an article that does not adhere to any kind of style guide for citations and references. Parsecboy (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Interesting referral you left me, but cases are not comparable. Whether you realize it or not, your argument is this article must revert to single ref cites. This means approximately 80 cites at the bottom for this, the shortest of the victory lists. A quick glance at the cites at an unrevised List of World War I aces credited with 15–19 victories will show you the mind-numbing baffling result of single cites done to your preference. The List of World War I aces credited with 5 victories will require about 400 single ref cites. I don't quite understand why you prefer confusion to clarity.
        • If page range is acceptable instead of specific individual pages cited ace by ace, the present multi-refs can be reconfigured.
          • Did you happen to count the number of footnotes in any of those articles? There are 161 in the South American article, 81 in Von der Tann, and 59 in Prinzregent Luitpold. How are those not comparable situations? But no, individual page citations is not a requirement of my argument (though it is the preferred solution). And even if it were, 80 citations is not an unreasonable number. See Albert Speer, which has 170 footnotes, or Nikita Khruschev, which has 270; both are FAs. As in these articles, the citations can be arranged in several columns to avoid excessive length and whitespace. In any case, using the SFN template conveniently highlights the citation when you click on the number in the text, and when you click the linked name, it highlights the corresponding ref in the reference section. I don't know how much more clear you can get. Parsecboy (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
            • If the citations are repetitions of
            • Franks, et al, 1993
            • Franks, et al, 1990
            • Franks, et al, 1997
            • Franks, Bailey, 1992
            • Franks 2005
            • with the entries repeated numerous times with differing page numbers, how clear is that? And would you consider 400 cites to be reasonable for a list? Especially when they can be reduced to about a dozen?
            • However, what I find most frustrating is that you apparently ignore every bit of information I have supplied to illustrate the present situation. Instead of familiarizing yourself with the unusual circumstances I am presenting, you are apparently dug into a defense of using the present citation system for any and all circumstances, no matter what. In so doing, you are acting out of incomplete understanding.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
              • If you use the {{sfn}} template, that isn't a problem. It links the citation directly to the correct source and is abundantly clear. Look at the numerous examples I have given you to see how it works. For the purposes of verifying material, citations should be as specific as possible. When the reference is a book, this means page numbers, at least at A-class and higher. If that means 400 citations (though I imagine that's an overstatement, since surely each person doesn't have a whole page to themselves), that is not at all unreasonable. As I pointed out above, there are numerous FAs with more than a couple hundred citations; it's not as unusual as you think. Parsecboy (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
                • Actually, almost every listing does indeed have its own page number, as the info was garnered from the same few encyclopedias of bios on WWI aces (which were written by varying lineups of the same few authors). If you had looked at the incomplete list of 260 cites at List of World War I aces credited with 5 victories, you would have found only 16 possible multi-refs. It appears that a standard cite method will result in about 350 cites total for a list of 406 aces. I can reduce that to about 12-15 cites. List of World War I aces credited with 10 victories was twice its present size before I edited it, with most of the extra bytes consumed by citations. The smaller list will load much more easily into browsers.
                  • Page size is not a problem - this list is only 12kb, which is quite small. Even the list of 5 aces is around 100kb, which can be reduced significantly if short cites were adopted. Regardless, there are numerous FAs and FLs significantly larger than that. Parsecboy (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
                    • Using my method of citation, the list of five victory aces can be halved. Add the one-third of the cites presently missing, and the size will probably balloon despite removal of Notes column.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
                      • The article is only 12kb - even if it doubles, it's still quite small. Parsecboy (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
                        • Back when all WWI victories were contained in the same list, previous administrators told me the list should be broken down due to browser loading problems. Even now, the largest of the resulting lists is at over 100,000 bytes and counting, using the prescribed methods of citation.
                        • WP:SIZE recommends a maximum size of 50kb.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • The bibliography at the bottom is on a template shared by a number of lists.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• That's all for now. Parsecboy (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Parsecboy's comment that a specific reference for each person on the list, including the relevant page number, is needed; this is a standard aspect of A class lists. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, I can see the consensus shaping up to "Be timid".
    • I have come up with a unique solution to an unusual situation. My multirefs will lead the reader to the source as surely and easily as one giving page numbers; any reader can use alphabetical order to find an entry. However, the consensus seems to be that there are no such situations as the one I outlined above, that a creative approach to problems is to be reflexively denied without understanding the situation, that all lists are actually comparable to articles, and that all entries must be standard cut-and-dried products to be top quality. Sadly unoriginal and misguided, but unbeatable. Oh, well, time to go do something useful rather than fiddle about with assessment.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Let me ask you a question: do you think an academic publisher would accept footnotes that basically say "it's somewhere in this 200-page book, you know how to use an index"? Why do you think Wikipedia should have lower standards? Parsecboy (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
        • University essays that don't provide page numbers are also likely to be penalized. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Actually, my cites refer the reader to an alphabetic listing in the text of an aviation history encyclopedia, not to an index. This is as easy and sure a method to find source info as page numbers. And, as I keep noting, it grossly reduces the number of cites at article's end.
          • And this is not a university paper; it's Wikipedia. Georgejdorner (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
            • This is only my interpretation, but as per WP:NOTPAPER we don't need to feel too constrained by size issues to begin with, and as pointed out by Parsecboy at 12kb the article is no where near any level that the size would start to be considered a problem; if we accept that size isn't a pressing issue, and nor is the number of cites on the article, why use a fairly uncommon citation system that people are going to be less familiar with, and potentially be presented with a harder, more time-consuming exercise at making use of? For instance, if I was to call one of these books up as an E-book, most of the time I can just type in two or three keystrokes to enter the page number and it would automatically fly straight down to the relevant section - This method takes an indisputably longer time in this scenario, especially when you consider that a pilot's name may have been mentioned under another pilot's bibliography, and thus the search term would drag through those results on the way down to the real main page; entering the page name is cleaner and easier to use, and simply in more common use, I don't see why not to use it. Kyteto (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
              • Back when all WWI victories were contained in the same list, previous administrators told me the list should be broken down due to browser loading problems. Even now, the largest of the resulting lists is at over 100,000 bytes and counting, using the prescribed methods of citation. By using my method of citation, that could be cut in half.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comments/suggestions: G'day George, I'm inclined to agree with Nick and Parsecboy regarding the page numbers as they both have considerable experience at the A-class and Featured levels, and - cards on the table - my personal preference would be to supply page numbers. On the other hand you raise an interesting point about limiting the number of individual citations. I can see some benefit in this (although as I said, it wouldn't be my personal preference). I suppose it probably comes down to how easy it would be for the reader to locate the information using your system. If it would be relatively easy, then it is probably okay. Having said that, I wouldn't mind seeing what some of the Featured list regulars think about the citation issue (it might pay to ask a couple of their regulars to join in here). If they are happy with it, then it could probably be okay; if not, though, I don't think we should be adopting something at A-class that isn't accepted at FL/FAC as that is just setting articles/lists up for failure at a later date. Anyway, it was not my intention to re-open the citation debate. Apologies. Here is my review:
  • within the References # 2 and 4 appear to be the same, so they should be consolidated like the others;
    • Multi-reffed.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • within the References # 2 and 4 should be formated consistently (e.g. italics for the title as per the other References);
    • Corrected.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • inconsistent presentation: "Page 10" v "p.7"; "page 74" v "p. 70". this should be consistent;
    • Corrected.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • there is a broken ISBN link for "Sopwith Pup Aces of World War 1", which should be rectified;
    • The ISBN works in both Google Advanced Book Search and Amazon Book Search. I am baffled as to why it does not work in WP.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • the styles in the Bibliography and Further reading section are inconsistent;
    • Remedied. ISBN not available for Fighter Aces.
  • in relation to the introduction, I would suggest removing the templates. These make it quite difficult for users to add related content without changing all the articles that use the template. I understand that you wish to maintain some consistency across these articles, but I think that could be counterproductive as it means that the introduction doesn't really focus on this list at all. (I am echoing Nick's comments here). For instance, I suggest adding some sort of summary of this list, for example "During World War I there were XYZ number of aces credited with 10 aerial victories. Of these, X came from blah, while there were Y and Z from blah..."
    • The templates are a consensus move by prior editors. Also, the suggestion that I rewrite nine introductions to nine lists as a long shot to possibly get one list approved...not an appealing prospect. Especially when all the dropin editors start wrangling.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • regarding further development, or how to handle the introduction, you might get some ideas by looking at related Featured Lists. For example, this might be relevant: List of German World War II jet aces, or some of these: Category:FL-Class military history articles. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
    • This introduction is linked to Aerial victory standards of World War I which is the sole source for aerial victory standards in ANY war. The FL you mention, List of German World War II jet aces, gives the reader no idea of how the Germans determined aerial victories in World War II. Somehow, this ignorance is the acceptable course.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • additional point: the licences on the image (File:Arthur Roy Brown from imperial war museum.jpg), might need tweaking. Is it possible to provide a link to the file in the IWM collection? I did a quick search on the IWM collection, but couldn't find the image. Also, wouldn't it need a UK licence, rather than a Canadian licence if it was taken while Brown was serving in a UK force? Sorry, I'm not really sure about these points. It might pay to ask User:Grandiose, as they might have a better understanding of this issue. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I imported the picture of Brown from his linked bio. If the original editor there got it wrong, then I got it wrong, and will have to find a replacement. I should hate to do that, as I think Brown is the pick of this particular list.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      • George, to clarify, I'm not saying that you need to replace the image, but that its licencing might just need to be tweaked. For instance, if an Imperial War Museum catalogue number could be found for it, I'm confident that it would be okay. It could then be established if it needs a UK or a Canadian licence. I would do it myself, but I've spent the past couple of hours trying to find the image on the IWM's catalogue and I can't find it. Is any one else able to help in this regard? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I've found this website which also states that the image comes from the IWM. As such, I've added that link to the source location. Its not a one hundred percent solution, but its probably the best I can do. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose on the page number issue alone. This doesn't mean there's anything wrong with your judgment, George, only that you have a misunderstanding of our A-class process. Among other goals, we're trying to introduce editors here to the understandings, compromises and standards that have been worked out at FAC and elsewhere. - Dank (push to talk) 12:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• I just may know more about the assessment process than you assume, Dank. I do note that the assessment process ignores one of the main attributes of hypertext. There is no attempt to evaluate the value of the links in nominated articles. The assessors' concept seems to be that slapping electronic pages into hyperspace suffices, and linkage be damned. There is nothing above that shows me that any assessor bothered to follow links from this list; indeed, there is a suggestion that I should duplicate Aerial victory standards of World War I to spare the reader from clicking a link.
• In the past, I have pointed out contradictions in the assessment process and been assured that if I changed my writing style, that the contradictions would magically disappear from the assessment process. With that level of "reasoning", is it any wonder I quit submitting articles for assessment?
• I admit the need for rigor in assessment and high standards. Unfortunately, it seems to have been replaced by rigidity instead. The quality of the coding in a list or article seems more important than the quality of the information. Form trumps function in the assessment process.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

---

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Duke of York (17)

Nominator(s): Thurgate (talk)

Third ship of the King George V class built, entering service in 1941 and seeing action throughout the remainder of World War II. She was heavily involved in actions against the German battleship Scharnhorst and significantly contributed to Scharnhorst's eventual sinking. Following the war she remained in service till April 1949 and was eventually sold for scrap on 18 May 1957. Special thanks to Sturmvogel_66 and Parsecboy who both made significant additions to the article and finally thanks to AustralianRupert for his numerous copy-edits which helped get the article to the standard it is at now. Thurgate (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Sorry, but this article is rather under-developed and doesn't meet the A class criteria I think. While its coverage of the ship's history is broad, it contains some gaps and lacks detail. Some of the grammar is also difficult to follow. Here are my comments:

• "During this period the Admiralty set in motion plans for the construction of a new battleship class. Which resulted in the King George V-class battleships being born." - the second sentence here seems to be a minor off-shoot of the first, and "being born" is vague.
• "Their armament was limited because when the original plans had been drawn up as early as 1933 the Washington Treaty was still in effect, and because of the second London Treaty in March 1936 which limited the maximum caliber of new battleship guns to 14-inch (356 mm)." - this isn't well written
• "However, within in a few months it became apparent that no other countries were sticking to the agreement and as a result it was too late to change the designs of the King George V-class battleships meaning the class were the only ships built at the time that adhered to the treaty." - ditto. This is hard to follow.
  • Thurgate, I have had a go at rewording the above. Please check that I haven't changed any of your meaning. I am a bit short of time at the moment, but will try to come back later and help out, if I can. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• The 'Construction' section has nothing about how this ship's construction was authorised. For instance, when was approval given to build her, how many ships in the class preceded her, etc.
• What impact did the start of the war have on the ship's construction? Did it continue as planned or was it accelerated or delayed?
• Can anything be said about the process of crewing the ship and preparing her for combat?
• "At full speed Duke of York had a range of 3,100 nautical miles (5,700 km; 3,600 mi) at 27 knots (50 km/h; 31 mph)" - was this before or after her fuel capacity was increased? Her cruising range should also be noted as this is more meaningful than her range at top speed.
• Some context for the ship's role in escorting Arctic convoys is needed (eg, that she was assigned to the Home Fleet, and did so to protect the convoys from German battleships)
• "In late April, King George V accidentally rammed the destroyer Punjabi and sustained significant damage; Duke of York was sent to relieve her" - where was she sent? You should also note that Punjabi sank as a result of this accident.
• "Duke of York came under air attack by Italian aircraft, but these were relatively small scale" - what was 'relatively small scale'? (and relative to what?)
• "Duke of York resumed her status as flagship from 14 May 1943 " - flagship of what?
• What's an "armoured ship"?
• "At 16:55 a 14-inch (356 mm) shell had silenced turret Anton, while another struck at the waterline aft." - you need to specify that this was on Scharnhorst
• "Following her sinking, and the retreat of most of the other German heavy units from Norway, the need to maintain powerful forces in British home waters was diminished" - this is a bit dubious. Tirpitz was the main threat to the Arctic Convoys, and she wasn't put out of action until later in 1944
• Did the ship really do so little in 1944 that it can be summarised in half a paragraph?
• "But a problem in Malta with the electrical circuitry delayed her." - this isn't well written, and is vague. What was the problem, and how long was she delayed for?
• Did Duke of York really dock in Sydney on 29 July and manage to be off Japan by 9 August? That's a remarkably fast turnaround in Sydney and voyage.
• " TF 37 and three American carrier task forces conducted a series of air raids on Japan starting on 9 August." - this was a continuation of a major offensive which had begun in July (see Air raids on Japan#Naval air attacks)
• What did the ship do in her last three years of active service? This is currently covered in a sentence!
• The article is rather-under illustrated. The Imperial War Museum and Australian War Memorial's online databases should have some copyright-free images of the ship you can use.
• Can anything at all be said about the ship's crew? They're not mentioned in the article once.
• "Gibralter" - spelling Nick-D (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments In addition to those mentioned above.

• Duplicate links tool reveals four overlinkings: Scapa Flow, HMS Victorious, Operation Husky, Aft
• Lead and "Description" section have several small paragraphs which should be merged or expanded into larger graphs.
• "Armament" section -- "Training arcs were: turret "A", 286 degrees; turret "B", 270 degrees; turret "Y", 270 degrees." This isn't a sentence.
• You refer to the turrets as "Anton" and "Bruno" in the history section. Are these the same turrents later established as A, B, and Y? Might want to clarify the phonetic alphabet terminology here, since it might be confusing.
• There are several references to time which need a corresponding time zone to make them more clear.
• I agree with the assessment above of "Post war." Unless the ship was literally parked at the same place for five years something should be added about what it did.
• "Breyer" ref isn't used in the footnotes.
• Only two of the "Chesneau" footnotes specify which of the two sources it is referring to. Also, probably best to distinguish them by year, as is done in FN7, as opposed to FN6.

Otherwise, the piece is off to a good start. Happy to support after Nick-D's comments and my comments are addressed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, unfortunately, as not enough progress has been made toward fixing this article's comments for several weeks. —Ed!^(talk) 16:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I did some more copy editing on this tonight and wasn't sure of this:

• "At 16:55 a 14-inch (356 mm) shell had silenced turret Anton, while another struck at the waterline aft". Was this on Scharnhorst or Duke of York? The text doesn't seem clear to me. I don't have any of the sources, can you please clarify? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• this seems a little inconsistent: (in the lead) "Duke of York was involved in Operations Camera and Governor ", but in the body of the article "Camera and Governor of Norway". Was it "Governor" or "Governor of Norway"? AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

No consensus to promote at this time Nick-D (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Blériot XI

Nominator(s): Petebutt (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it seems to meet the criteria for at least A-class, if not higherPetebutt (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Comments: I'm sorry, but I don't believe that this article meets the A-class criteria at the moment. I won't oppose at this stage, though, because I think that with a bit of work it could be brought up to scratch. These are a few of the issues that I see:

• lead: currently this is being used as an introduction, however, at A-class a lead should summarise the whole article. As such, if possible, can you please expand the lead to summarise the rest of the article? Two or three paragraphs would probably be enough;
• referencing: currently the article has large amounts of information that do not appear to be covered by a citation. The general rule in the Military History project is that at a bare minimum each paragraph needs a citation at the end of it if all the information contained in that paragraph came from a single source. If multiple sources were used, more citations would be required throughout the paragraph in the appropriate places;
• structure: I suggest moving the information that is in the "Further development" section to the "Design and development" section. Additionally, I suggest making the "Military use" section a subsection of the "Operational history" section;
• coverage: currently the lead mentions that the aircraft first flew on 23 January 1909, but this doesn't appear to be mentioned in the body of the article. As this is a key part of the development of the article, I feel it should be mentioned. Additionally, could more be added about its military use. Was it considered successful in the roles that it was used? Also, there is a long list of operators, but the Military use section only mentions a few of these;
• English variation: I found some variation of English in the article. For instance "meters" (US) and "metres" (British Commonwealth). Either version would be acceptable, but it should be consistent;
• Famous pilots list: I don't have much experience of aircraft articles, so I'm not sure if there is a guideline supporting the use of this list or not. However, personally I'm uncertain about the value of this list. Are these pilots famous for their exploits in this aircraft, or just in general? If the latter, I'd suggest removing. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • There have been a few recent improvements, but I don't believe they are enough to bring it up to standard. As such, unfortunately I have to oppose its promotion at this time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• I'd agree with AustralianRupert - the referencing definitely needs some more work before its ready to A Class.
• It would also be worth checking through the citations; Gibbs-Smith is mentioned, for example, but isn't in the bibliography; Munson is in the bibliography but isn't used.
• My advice would be to take it through Good Article review first, then A Class. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose due to the lack of citations if nothing else. Sorry, but compare this with the De Havilland Comet article also up for ACR at this moment, where each paragraph is fully cited to at least one source, and all operators are also cited. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment I'm the editor who has done most of the recent adding to this article. Interesting to read the above comments. A few points:

• The referencing certainly need improving. With the design & development it's more a problem with which source to cite, but I'm (sort of) on it. Gibbs-Smith is not in the bibliography because he doesn't have a great deal to say about the aircraft, but he is good for the cite about the Chauviere propeller.
• The list of famous pilots seemed to be a good way of including the information, & was how I found the article. I'll have another look at the list, but all of them that I've looked at or added did notable things in the type.
• I made a considered decision to split the technical stuff about the machine into two sections, with the Channel flight in between. This is because before the Channel flight it was just another of Bleriots many attempts to make a sucessful aircraft. After the channel flight, everything changed: the whole later development & subsequent history is consequence of that flight, and it seemed to make sense to split the article that way. I'm entirely open to persuasion, but it seemed to make more narrative sense.
• Oppose There's no way the article is A class in my opinion. A lot more could be written on the military use (not my strong point or primary interest): and the list of variants is in my opinion rather undeveloped. I don't have the Tom Crouch book on the type, & I am highly suspicious of the only book have which covers these, Opdycke's French Aeroplanes before the Great War. There's also nothing (as yet) on those built by other companies under license.
• I'll have a go at expanding the lead, & the point about first flight not being in the body of the article is certainly one I'll deal with.TheLongTone (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Mostly for the points listed above by the other reviewers. I would suggest that the list of notable pilots be reworked by incorporating the significant achievements of the aircraft flown by these pilots into the main body of the article. Many more details of the military use of the aircraft would be required for it to be assessed as complete in my eyes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 / not promoted per nominator's request -- Ian Rose (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Adolf Galland

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because with a little help from all of you I think I can take Dapi89 (talk · contribs) work to A-class. He and I had been working on this article, with the bulk of the work attributed to Dapi89 so far. As you may know Dapi89 chose to retire from Wikipedia leaving the article where it stands now. I want to bring his work to A-Class. Please help me in the process. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Definitely getting there, but the prose needs a little bit of work in places. I've suggested some bits below:
• " fought on the Western and the Defence of the Reich fronts" - I'm not an expert, but is the Defence of the Reich a front or rather a campaign?
  • good point! done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• " Galland, born in Westerholt (now Herten), Westphalia a glider pilot in his youth" - there's a word missing here
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• "as Germanys commander" > "Germany's"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• "General der Jagdflieger" - should the second mention of this be in italics as well?
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Adolf Galland (junior) was the second of four sons of the land manager or bailiff to the Count von Westerholt Adolf Galland (senior)" - I found this hard to follow, partially because initially in the sentence the reader doesn't know if Adolf Galland (jnr) is our Adolf Galland or not. You also need some commas to clarify that his dad isn't the the Count.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Their father had pet names for all his family members. His wife Anna was called "Anita". Fritz, his older brother, was called "Toby", Adolf was "Keffer", Wilhelm-Ferdinand was nicknamed "Wutz" and Paul was called "Paulinchen" or since they were expecting a girl, occasionally "Paula"" - While Adolf's own pet name might be relevant, I'm not sure the others are in this context.
• " a group of aviation enthusiasts brought the first glider club to Borkenberge" - ? Do we mean they created Borkenberge's first glider club, or that they brought the first glide club (in Germany...?) to Borkenberge?
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• " Gelsenkirchen Luftsportverein" - should this be in italics?
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• " Galland travelled by foot or horse-drawn wagon" - Did he do this routinely?
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• " it became the way for fledgling pilots" - "the way" or "a way"?
• "set up ten schools, one in each of the seven military districts of Germany." - where did the other three go?
• " and how everything worked on paper " - felt an informal way of phrasing this. "in theory", perhaps?
• " to buy him his own Glider" > "glider"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• "before he'd passed" > "he had passed"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• " life was hard for the Galland family economically and jobs were scarce" - should the jobs go in the front of this sentence; jobs were scarce for all, not just for the family.
  • good point! done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• "so he applied to the Deutsche Verkehrsfliegerschule" - he already did this at the end of the previous section, didn't he?
• "Adolf was then assessed on performance. " - performance in what? (the paragraph hasn't got to him flying a plane yet, so its not 100% clear)
• "he applied to join the German Army, convinced that he would soon be sent home" - suggest reversing this, e.g. "he was convinced he would soon be sent home, and he applied to join the German Army"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• " the award of a B1 certificate for large aircraft over 2, 500 kg in weight" - "certificate allowing him to fly large..."?
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• " who came from clandestine programmes, meeting Hermann Göring for the first time" - "clandestine programmes"?
• "after Galland had flown" - strictly speaking, this means that they won their respect at some point after his good flying; did you mean this, or did you mean "after Galland flew", meaning that this was what won their respect?
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• "as a glider pilot winning some prizes" > "as a glider pilot, winning some prizes" Hchc2009 (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I haven't appraised most of the article, but I think the Self-appraisal section needs another look:

• The tone is a bit patchy. "Galland did not pretend to have been error free.", for example; the rest is subtly off tone. I think you can probably see it, if you look; I'm struggling exactly to put into words. I'll try harder if you miss it.
• Never been a big fan of bullet points, myself, but I recognise they might be the best way to present information in limited circumstances. However, I think, given that this passage is taken from one source, that the presented problems are arbitrary packaged up into particular things. Did Galland actually say they'd made four mistakes, or did he merely provide a commentary? I'm a bit worried that the source is shaping our presentation of this information, which might be better done by integrating it into the other text, or removing the bullet points and presenting it as a commentary and not a specific list.
  • I don't own the book which Dapi used here but I can confirm that Isby, David C (1998). The Luftwaffe Fighter Force The View from the Cockpit. London: Greenhill Books. ISBN 1-85367-327-7 uses a similar style to present the "four" areas of improvement. The chapter is called "The Most Important Mistakes of the Luftwaffe as Seen from the Standpoint of the GAF Fighter Force" by Adolf Galland. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Regretful oppose It's good to see that this high-profile article is of good quality. However, I think that it's prose needs a lot of work. My comments are:

• The article needs a through copy edit. I'm not going to highlight individual issues given how widespread the problems are, but the article's prose is not of A-class standard I'm afraid. The underlying paragraph structure, etc, is generally fine, but the grammar is a bit awkward throughout. I appreciate that you and Dapi aren't native English-speakers; I'd suggest listing this at WP:GOCE and/or asking for some of this project's copy editing specialists to have a go.
• "The sport became so popular that the Reichswehr set up ten schools, one in each of the seven military districts of Germany." - where were the other three located?
• What's a 'Geschwader'?
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• The lead says that Galland "volunteered for the Condor Legion", but the relevant section of the article implies that he was posted to Spain
• British Commonwealth air units always have a 'No.' at the front of their name (eg, '610 Squadron' should be 'No. 610 Squadron')
  • done not by me MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• 'European Theatre of Operations' is a term used mainly by the United States, and seems a bit odd when applied to Germany (as almost all of Germany's war effort was within Europe)
• What was Galland's knowledge of Nazi war crimes as mentioned in the article? Was he implicated in any? Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • No worries. At least I know where to start. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Withdrawn by nominator EyeSerene^talk 09:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher

Nominator(s): Adamdaley (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... It has been extensively expanded. Referenced and cited from reliable sources, has images and an infobox as well as inline citations and has reached GAN status in the last few weeks in three WikiProjects. It is also over 33,000 bytes, has an archival box for talkpage. Has also been nominated for "On This Day..." six times since 2005. Would like to see it progress to an "A class" article. Adamdaley (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Sources/Reading – Cross-checked all ISBNs for accuracy.
    • Whittell, Giles. (2011). A True Story of the Cold War: Bridge of Spies. Simon & Schuster UK Ltd. London. ISBN 978-0-8572-0164-5 does not match to any known IBSN. S&S' site provides details of a 2012 edition, but no 2011 edition: http://books.simonandschuster.co.uk/Bridge-of-Spies/Giles-Whittell/9781849833271 which works on Amazon using ISBN 978-1849833271. Although I do not understand why you have cited both a 2010 and 2011 edition of the same book.. are there so many significant changes between the two versions only a year or so apart that they are both necessary? If not, just one would be better with in-line citations to one also, as your average reader is not going to own two copies of the book and want to be searching through both for citations.
    • The book Abel, under further reading, is missing any publisher location info.
    • Usually, references use the format Location: Publisher although is depends what style you use, so not mandatory, but helps prevent confusion, e.g. you have "Little Brown. Canada." at one point. To some, this might appear like Little Brown is a place in Canada, whereas "Canada: Little Brown" indicates it is a publisher in Canada. Incidentally, might be useful to also include the Canadian town/city for that title, if known.
    • A typo in the The Venona Secrets reference says "Publiahing".
    • Corporate designations such as "Ltd" or "Inc" are not usually included in publisher details.
    • In your in-line citations, the format Surname, (year), p. ##. is consistent, although a comma is not required between the surname and (year). Also, (year) is normally only required when you are citing an author and are using two or more of their titles, to serve as a second designator. Again, depending on your preferred referencing style, these are not mandatory format standards, simply means for keeping it short and simple.
    • Whittell, (2010), p. XI — unless the book itself uses uppercase Roman numerals, preliminary pages should normally be cited using lowercase Roman numerals, with uppercase reserved for Volumes (and in some cases, chapters).
    • You've cited his imprisonment in the Lead. Currently Ref 11^a, but you won't need it, as Ref 11^c covers that information in the main body.
    • Might want to consider using the {{cite book}} template, to maintain a referencing standard, if it suits your needs.
  • Other
    • SS Scythia — I could be wrong, but I think only the "SS" designation needs to be in italics, per ships MOS.
    • Typo, "acitivities" under "Capture and later" section, paragraph 4.
    • Word "protoege" — "Early career", paragraph 2 – would using "protégé" with accents not be better? Without accents it appears as a typo.

Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 08:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• The Giles Whittell books. One is paperback and the other is hardcover. The paperback is from the local library which of course I was unable to get the article done within 3 months. Therefore bought the hardcover from Amazon. There is a significant difference in number of pages while the paperback has more pages than then the hardback. Adamdaley (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• MarcusBritish - I am having worried concerns about this assessment. I do not want to point you in the wrong direction. I have concerns pertaining to the ability of yours since I do not have all the books on hand. Personally, I've worked hard to get this article to the way it was prior to tonight. There are two ways I can go about this which will only end up with only one option, that is to spend more money on books which I do not have that is listed at the bottom of the article and totally re-write the whole article. Or secondly, ask for it to be deleted which personally I know will never happen. So basically, I leave it as it and hope for someone who is willing to clean it up. For I have become disappointed in some of changes. To me, some of the changes look professional. Guess I was wrong. It was good you picked up on some spelling mistakes which I've corrected. I'm very disappointed. Adamdaley (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You have concerns regarding my ability to do what? As I stated here, I know nothing of the Cold War, so I've provided a review relating to spot-checking the spelling/grammar, citations and references, and MOS adherence. All these areas are well within my abilities, and given that you need "Support" 3 reviews for an ACR, my proof reading can still lead to one of those supportive votes, even if I do not review content/context from a historical POV. You will need at least one reviewer to give it a review based on that, however. Now sure why on Earth you're disappointed.. you've had 1 review, just await 2 more.. they'll come eventually. Give it time, have patience. Don't worry about expanding it further or buying more books, it looks good to me, but I can't say more than that as I have zero knowledge of the Cold War to put the article into perspective. Hopefully, someone else can. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 16:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Please allow me to have time to get the following books:

Bernikow, Louise. (1970). Abel. Hodder and Stoughton. ISBN 0-3401-2593-4 (1982) Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-3453-0212-5.

Donovan, James B. (1964). Strangers on a Bridge: The Case of Colonel Abel. Atheneum. New York. 711124

West, Nigel. (1990). Games of Intelligence: The Classified Conflict of International Espionage. Crown Publishers. New York. ISBN 0-5175-7811-5.

Which also will include the paperback edition of Giles Whittell which I originally got from the local library which started me off with this article. Adamdaley (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well, get whatever you feel you need. However, there is nothing in my review that requires a physical copy of any books.. a few typos and minor suggested corrections to your citation style cannot be verified in the books, as I have made no review of the content per se. Whilst another reviewer may make suggestions that require further reading and expansion, my support will be given based on correction of typos, clear citing, etc. Therefore I am unsure why you made those numerous minor fixes and then reverted them, given that they do not require books for verification, whatsoever, but are in fact mostly standard Wiki compliance tweaks for readability, etc. You say you "do no want to point me in the wrong direction", but I have already been through ACR and GAR in the past, I know the procedure, so I'm not aware that I even need to pointed, usually the reviewer points the nominator in given direction, not vice versa, as part of the collaborative process. So I'm still unclear as to your disappointment, etc.. the review is sound, I am wholly confident in that respect. I'm sure the closing coord will be too. Your concerns over my assessment are noted, but you did ask for this to be assessed asap, so beggars can't be choosers, and my assessment is hardly low quality or degrading. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 00:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for over-reacting last night. I appreciate your helping me. Why I was so dissappointed I am a perfectionist, and was annoyed with myself for not picking up errors. As for having both the paperback and hardcover of "Bridge of Spies", I started the article with the paperback from the library, prior to my buying the hardcover. Hence I included both books Bibliography section as the page numbers were different, in hindsight I should have used the one book. If you go to Giles Whittell "Bridge of Spies" 2011 Paperback. The paperback appears on their website it could have been an Australian edition, though the publisher's information indicated UK. This is why you were unable to verify it. I am prepared to change the references/citations using only the 2010 hardcover edition. I appreciate your assessment being neither "low quality or degrading". One more question is why I have mentioned two ships/boats in the article SS Scythia (once) and RMS Queen Mary (twice), whereas only one seems to be causing confusion for me. You think only the "SS" should be in italics, however AustralianRupert has changed it to "SS Scythia". Adamdaley (talk) 09:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

G'day, the relevant policy link is Wikipedia:MOSITALICS#Italic face. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rupert, I knew it was one or the other, MOSSHIPS has similar examples which I have noted in the past. Adam, apologies aren't necessary, I appreciate that many of us get a touch of OCD or perfectionist behaviour, including myself, when tackling things; we all miss the odd typo, so it's always helpful to have a proof-reader in addition to using a spell-checker, which aren't infallible. I use Firefox's built in checker, and switch between UK/US dictionaries to help me spot things during editing, but still make mistakes, as html/wiki markup always shows as errors, and it can be tricky to spot typos amongst them. Yes, I would recommend you use just one edition of the book, seems like the 2011 was a Limited edition, and does not appear via Amazon just yet, possibly a publisher-only order and won't be included until sellers try to flog it second hand. In that case, better to use the edition which is easier to find internationally. It would also prevent someone, a user or bot, flagging the article as an unverified source at a later date, because it is uncommon. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 11:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Hopefully a couple of other reviewers come along. I can't review, though, because I was involved pretty extensively in copy editing at GAN. For what its worth, I think your review contains many good points that will stand the article in good stead. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

MarcusBritish ... I've decided to ask you to close the current "A-class" assessment of this article. I'm waiting on other books, and I've come to a certain point in the article where there are references/citations not refering to anything. Therefore, I am going to have to wait for the books, which are on their way and I am going to get another one tomorrow in Sydney which a bookstore has. Adamdaley (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• No consensus. Sorry, but this has been open for a while and it doesn't seem that anybody else is planning to support in the near future. With two supports, one neutral, and one set of comments from an editor who hasn't declared a position, it can't be closed as successful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Bautzen (1945)

Nominator(s): --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 12:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again. The last round had two supports. To address last reviewer's final comment, which I missed before the discussion got archived, Polska Zbrojna and Zbigniew Wawer seem reliable. No, Wawer does not provide a list of most bloody Polish battles; but he is an expert on the subject and I see no reason to dispute his claim. In any case, his claim is attributed in text. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 12:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I would like one more source introduced into the first paragraph of teh "Background" section, which otherwise relies on a single source except for the last sentence. This has an effect on the coverage and neutrality, although it's hard to say exactly what. I find they are often unknown unknowns when I'm introducing sources. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything in that paragraph to fall under the WP:REDFLAG? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I would not say so. However, I assume that is a statement to the effect that you believe that action is not required under the criteria. I would say that the same picniples applied to any significant run of sentences as an article: that a single source could be damaging to firstly, A1, "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge", and A2 "comprehensive... and presents views fairly and without bias". We are presenting a selection of the facts, and it's important that this selection reflects the overall coverage. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hrmp. The last time I asked an editor here to provide more then one reference per paragraph I was told, in quite strong words, that this is too much. As I am not seeing any of my sources going into the level of detail of the one used, and as you yourself admit this is not a REDFLAG, I believe that my one-ref-per-sentence standard is satisfying MOS and other relevant criteria. If you'd be so kind as to provide me with a reference that would allow me to flesh this out, I'd of course consider using it, but I am currently convinced that this paragraph is sufficiently referenced. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not my area - and don't get me wrong, I'm not opposing over it. It is up to the other editor's discretion. My point was that the way other sources cover these events is likely to be slightly different, and it is very useful if the article reflected that. Just like in the rest of the article, where different sources are woven together to provide better coverage. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, I've just realised that ref 10 might cover the whole paragraph? If it does, sorry, there's no problem. Else, might it also cover the preceding overview in some capacity? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle. There is scope for more expansion, if more sources are found, but I guess we agree that it is not strictly necessary. As I wasn't the one who added ref 10, I am afraid I wouldn't know. You may want to ask the editor who did (StoneProphet?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ref10 was acutally only added for the last sentence, although it probably could be partly applicated on some of the others too.StoneProphet (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(outdent). In that case I remain neutral. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment:

1. Lead: In the absence of a WikiPage for the red-linked "Spremberg–Torgau Offensive" it would be good if there could be a few more words describing this offensive.

1. Yes, it would. I am looking forward to somebody writing it :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Added link. Farawayman (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Lead: Third paragraph of lead raises what could be viewed as a number of contentious issues - although they are again mentioned in the body and are well cited there - these is no harm in repeating the citations for these statements - especially ".... modern Polish historians became much more critical of Świerczewski's command, blaming his incompetence and desire to capture Dresden for the near destruction of the Polish forces."

1. I'd prefer not to clutter the lead, but I would not object to somebody adding it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Polish retreat: "He also sent his chief of staff, General Ivan Yefimovich Petrov, and his chief of operations, General Vladimir Ivanovich Kostylev, to look at the situation" - I think it needs to be made clear that Petrov was Koniev's CofS. Could be ambiguous to unfamiliar readers. (More specifically, as I understood the course of events - Koniev sent Petrov to try to recover the situation and launch a counter-attack while Kostylev was specifically sent to try to locate Świerczewski. However, Koniev only spent a few hours at the front and delegated all responsibility to Kostylev).

1. He->Koniev fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Polish Retreat: One of the key actions taken by Kostylev was to bring the 2nd Air Army into the battle - perhaps this needs to be mentioned.

1. Sounds good. Would you happen to have a ref for it? Seems mentioned in Erickson, added. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Other: I am not use if Schörner was actually in Command of the German forces because he had been promoted to Field Marshal in April. It is certain that Fritz-Hubert Gräser was involved as commander of 4th Panzer. Please check this - but then again, at this time the German command structure was in a total mess.

1. Agreed. I looked into this a while ago: Talk:Battle_of_Bautzen_(1945)#German_Commander_at_the_Battle_of_Bautzen. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Other: For A Class, I would strongly recommend having the maps translated into English. Refer Wikipedia:Graphic Lab - I'm sure they could assist.

1. Will ask for assistance right now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Other: Remove " ? guns" from the "Strength" section of the infobox.

1. Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Well written and interesting article covering largely unknown events!

Farawayman (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: What is shown on the two polish maps of the battle? It should be explained for the non-polish-speaking people, otherwise it is quite useless. And to the other map: I think a map of 1937 Germany is not the best to show the location of the battleside. Best would be a map with the frontlines in April 1945. --Bomzibar (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop#Map_translation:_Battle_of_Bautzen_.281945.29. In progress. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose A1

• Since I'm the "last reviewer" I suppose I should chime in that I don't feel like my concerns were addressed before the renomination, which isn't a good sign, but I'm perfectly reasonable.
• The article has a majority of citations from two sources, one of which is a webpage from Polska Zbrojna (polska-zbrojna.pl).
• That article is written in Polish with no citations to back up the facts (for example, the 'bloodiest battle' I mentioned in the previous nom - can't you find an English language citation for that fact?).
• Ways to fix this: establish the reliability of the source (do other English wikipedia A/FA articles use this source?), reliability of the author (maybe some books or journal articles?), and have another editor who is fluent in Polish review the article for plagiarism.
• I would also ping one of the MilHist admins to review the article; I've never seen an article with that many citations from a non-english sources get this far, usually its just a handful to fill out the gaps. Kirk (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

reliability of the author (maybe some books or journal articles?) - the first line of this page already establishes the author's, Zbigniew Wawer's, reliability. He is a military historian specializing in World War II, and author of several books [11] and member of the Polish Academy of Science [12]

I can also review the article for plagiarism (sic) (you mean copyvio)... but why would you expect that there would be some?VolunteerMarek 01:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I checked the article and source for copyvios. There aren't any. Text is properly paraphrased.VolunteerMarek 17:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, Polska Zbrojna for reliability. And as I mentioned last time, the most bloody claim is attributed to the historian, so one can take it or leave it upon examining the reliability, with both the historian and the magazine having English entries. Also, a lot of topics don't have significant coverage in English and require foreign sources, which is indeed quite allowed up to and including the FA (WP:NOENG). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I will add WP:NOENG says English language sources are preferred. Kirk (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

But not required. Also, they often don't exist, as is the case here, AFAICT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Thanks for that info on Wawer and checking the source text. His books use footnotes so I wonder why they weren't used in this case. Maybe some of this content is in one of his books?
    • I am not getting any google book hits on Wawer and Budziszyn, leading me to believe he was just interviewed about that battle for an article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • My concern with 'most bloody battle' at this point is I have no idea what that means (number deaths, number of deaths+wounded, casualties, other?), and it was translated from a foreign language by the nom which is why it would be nice to have another citation for that fact. Maybe you could put original quote in a note?
    • Original quote, you can ask another Polish speaker to verify it or machine translate it for that purpose: "Nie było to starcie zwycięskie, straty były ogromne – największe poniesione w jednej bitwie przez Wojsko Polskie po wrześniu 1939 roku. Więcej ofiar pochłonęły tylko walki nad Bzurą." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
      • That's good, but put it in the article in a note so the reader has some idea why that claim is in the article. I still don't know what a bloody battle means that's why finding a second source for that fact would be good because it might have the context.
  • Its unusual for articles to be promoted to A when they rely on a single source for over 25% of the citations. Could you replace some of the Polska Zbrojna citations with another source? Kirk (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Unusual... can you show me where it is said in the rules that such articles are not permitted to be A-class? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Its not a rule - theoretically, you could have a A article with a single source and a single citation, but if you want to achieve A2 you have to show your article is looking at the breadth of English-language scholarship on a topic. I think you are asserting there is no other scholarship on this topic, which I guess could happen but I think you could find some more sources if you tried. The way I usually do this is by looking through the bibliography of the main source but since your source has no bibliography its going to be more difficult.
• Polska Zbrojna is probably ok if any MilHist A articles use that source; if not, ask one of the coordinators to look at this article. Kirk (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Sure, remind me which one speaks Polish? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support: I reviewed this last time, I only have a few minor points. I looked mainly at presentation:
  • in the infobox there is a slight inconsistency in the style that you present the units involved. I suggest changing "elements of the German 4th Panzer and 17th Armies" to "4th Panzer Army (elements)" and "17th Army (elements)";
  • "isolated clashes in that region continued till April 30". This might sound smoother as "...isolated clashes in that region continued until April 30";
  • the duplicate links tool highlights a few duplicate links that you might consider cutting. The general rule is once in the lead, once in the infobox and once in the prose. Sometimes, at FAC, it will be considered okay to include a second link in the body if there is some distance between the mentions. As such, I leave this as a suggestion only for you to use your own judgement as to whether the links are necessary. The links that the tool highlighted as duplicate are: Battle of Berlin (in the lead), 17th Infantry Division (Germany), Volkssturm, Lohsa, Spree, Panschwitz-Kuckau, and Kamenz;
  • in the References, there are examples of duplicate full stops, e.g. "Ministry of National Defense Pub.." These should probably be cut to just single full stops;
  • in the References, I think that the titles should be presented in title case, not sentence case. For instance "Poles in the battle of Berlin" probably should be "Poles in the Battle of Berlin";
  • the References might be better presented using some form of short citation method. For instance see List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (E), which is also up for A-class review at the moment. It would cut down on duplicte information. This is only a suggestion, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks, most of the above fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Support

• The technical bits:
  • No dablinks [13]
  • No issues with reflinks [14]
  • External links check out fine [15]
  • Image licenses good
  • Optional: images don't have alt text (not an A-Class requirement)
• Spot check of article text against sources (web-accessible only and with heavy use of Google translate!) seems fine.
  • Why is Andrzej Solak [16] a reliable source? He claims, for example "the death of nearly eight thousand Polish soldiers", which seems to be inaccurate.
• Prose is generally good. I've done some minor copyediting in places; please feel free to rv anything you don't like :)
  • Historiography section: "He might have also been relieved of his command for a brief period by Marshal Konev." Not sure what this is saying

Further copyediting is recommended if it's intended to take the article to FAC. Thank you for an enjoyable read about a battle I knew nothing about. Best, EyeSerene^talk 10:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've reducent reliance on Solak, who is indeed not very reliability. The cited sentence means that according to the source cited, Swierczewski was relieved of his command by Konev, for a brief period. Could you rewrite it so it is more clear? It seems clear enough to me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've tweaked that sentence and struck both my objections per your replies. I've also done some copyediting of the Background section; the only substantive change is that I removed the note about Świerczewski's departure from Konev's plan having dire consequences, because that's looking ahead to the end of the article and therefore jumping out of the chronological order. If you want to put it back though, please do!
• One more question for you: the article uses both "Polish Second Army" and "2nd Army". Which is preferred for consistency? EyeSerene^talk 09:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for helping out. I think that Polish Second Army, per article (Second Army (Poland)), but I am open to another option if we have some mil units naming guidelines. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've changed all references to 2nd Polish Army to read Polish Second Army. There may be some additional consistency issues with the naming for other units (eg Soviet 52nd Army), but the only guiidance I can find at WP:MILMOS is Names should generally follow the stylistic conventions used by the service or country of origin. For example, while US and British usage has spelled-out numerals for army-level formations and Roman numerals for corps, editors writing about different countries should follow those countries' normal usages; thus, "3. Panzer Armee" becomes "3rd Panzer Army", and "18-ya Armiya" becomes "18th Army". You'd know better than I which version is preferred in Polish sources. Anyway, happy to support and thanks again for an interesting article. EyeSerene^talk 08:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Not promoted EyeSerene^talk 12:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

ASM-A-1 Tarzon

Nominator(s): The Bushranger _{One ping only}

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...I believe it covers the subject to the maximum amount that can be achieved with the (remarkably scarce, considering) sources available; does so clearly and in a well-referenced way, and is both an educational and enjoyable read. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comments This is a very interesting article. However, I think that it needs a bit of work to reach A class:
  • The lead is a bit short, even allowing for the overall shortness of the article. While I'm a bit hesitant to recommend my own stuff as an example of best practice, the approach I used at Ordnance QF 25-pounder Short might be useful.
  • "the ASM-A-1 saw brief operational service in the Korean War before, as a result of safety and cost issues, being withdrawn from service in 1951." - reads oddly. I'd suggest moving the 'as a result of safety and cost issues' to the end of the sentence
  • "Intended to be carryed by the Boeing B-29 Superfortress medium bomber" - the B-29 was designated a very heavy bomber in 1945
  • Why was this bomb developed? I presume it was so that it could be used in the planned invasion of Japan.
  • Did the British provide any assistance with this weapon's development? I imagine that they would have been very interested in it given the success of the Tallboy in RAF service
  • The paragraph which begins 'The largest bomb used in combat during the war' is actually a single sentence. It should be tweaked so that it's several sentences
  • The sentence which begins "Modifications were made to solve the problem" is over-long and rather complex. It would be better to cover this material in a few sentences.
  • What's "prime altitude"?
  • The article states that the weapon was considered so successful that the USAF ordered 1,000 of them but later states that the USAF considered it unreliable and not worth its cost-premium when the project ran into trouble. This seems a bit contradictory. Nick-D (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

• While I'm not sure that we really need to know the nomenclature of the radio control systems, clarify that the ARW was the transmitter and the URW was the receiver.
• Clarify that the annular wing and revised tail surfaces were additions to the standard Tallboy.
• You need to consult Volume 3 of William Wolf's book U.S Aerial Armament in World War II as it has some different info on the bomb and its development. If you can't obtain a copy, I can scan the relevant pages for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I can get that from my local library, actually - I'll put in the interlibrary loan request tomorrow, and get to addressing the other concerns starting over the weekend. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose for now, mainly contingent on the above comments not yet being addressed. I'll support once these, and my own, are addressed.

• A little bit of context might be necessary to explain why the large bomb was developed. Maybe some info about bomb doctrine during World War II, as its hard for the layman to understand why they'd even bother to try a bomb like this given its limitations.

• How many of them could one B-29 carry?

• As with the above comment, more elaboration is needed on the 1,000 bomb order and cancellation. Was the lost aircraft the entire reason the project was cancelled, or was it the results of the tests?
• Any idea on how many were ultimately produced?
• Some additional context might be necessary to explain any lessons learned from this weapon, and if it influenced the direction subsequent bomb developments took. —Ed!^(talk) 23:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Withdrawn by nominator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Dr John Forrest (1804-1865)

Nominator(s): Gilesforrest (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has been significantly updated since previous B review, addressing the citation style and source issues. Appreciate feedback on how to improve it further. Gilesforrest (talk) 22:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

• Title doesn't follow MOS, as does much of the whole article.
• It's got unaddressed hatnotes. These alone warrant the failure of a GAN, let alone an ACR. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Nice work on the article so far, but it needs some more polishing before it's ready for A-class, including formatting and a citation needed tag or two. This being your first article, I strongly suggest you take it to get a History peer review first, that way you can iron out most of these issues and have an easier time at A-class review, and later at WP:FAC if you plan on going there. You might also consider putting it up for a Good Article review before bringing it here, as that can be another very useful way to get problems fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for comments so far, I've made changes as suggested and have submitted for peer review as accept this isn't ready for A-class yet! Gilesforrest (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose
• As mentioned above, here are a range of issues that need addressing; if you fancy putting it up for GAR after its been through peer review, though, I will keep an eye out for it and happily review. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Not promoted, due to unresolved commentary and lack of consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Griffith Rutherford

Nominator(s): Wikipedian1234 (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This article achieved GA a while ago and has been peer reviewed. I have followed suggestions from other editors to the best of my ability; thought it was time to try out for A-class. Thanks-- Wikipedian1234 (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright check File:Rutherford trace map.jpg has an inappropriate non-free rationale, because it is replaceable. Even if no map of the military campaign exists, it is possible to create a free one. You just need a free map of the area (or a free map of a bigger area, and cut the desired part) and add the points of the military campaign. Cambalachero (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I have sent NC Learns a message asking permission under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License. Will update you on the situation once I receive a response. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC))

Got a response. Apparently the image is released under the "Creative Commons BY-NC-SA license". Regardless the organization gave me full permission to use the image as long as I credit the author etc. Will consult the Commons on this and hopefully have a OTRS tag within a few hours--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC))

Done --(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC))

• SupportComments: G'day, interesting article. I see no reason why this article couldn't be promoted to A-class, although there are a couple of tweaks that I think need to be made first. At A-class, I tend to try to aim my comments towards FAC, as many will head that way shortly afterwards. As with anything on Wiki, I'm happy to discuss any points you disagree with:
  • firstly, as we currently have a large backlog at Milhist ACR at the moment, I would like to encourage you to offer a couple of reviews of other nominations (three reviews for one nom is probably best, but one or two would certainly be appreciated). However, I stress that this is not mandatory. Nevertheless, if you don't, it stretches our capacity even further and means that it may not be possible for this article and others to be fully reviewed (they require a minimum of three supports to pass);
  • Anyway, to the review...
  • there are no dab links (no action required), ext links all work (no action required);
  • there is inconsistency in regards to the date of death. The last sentence of the lead says "15 August 1805, at the age of 84". The infobox says "August 10, 1805 (aged 84)" and the Later life section says "Rutherford died in Sumner County, TN on 10 August 1805"; Done
  • in the lead, this probably should be tweaked: "where he married his wife, Elizabeth". Perhaps try "where he married Elizabeth Graham", or more simply "where he got married"; Done
  • in the Southern theater section, you probably need a second comma here: "Governor Caswell and Rutherford met in Kingston, North Carolina" (after North Carolina); Done
  • this should be plural possessive: "Soldier's enlistments soon began" (specifically "soldier's" should be "soldiers'...") Done
  • there are some examples of incorrectly displayed time per WP:MOSTIME, for instance here: "by 10 o'clock PM". It should probably just be "10:00 pm" (with a non breaking space before the "pm"); Done
  • there is currently a mixture of date format used in the article. For instance "10 August 1805" v. "September 14". Either style is fine, IMO, but it should be consistent throughout the article; Done
  • some of the emdashes are incorrectly spaced. Per WP:DASH emdashes shouldn't have spaces before them; Done
  • probably need a second comma here: "ten months at Castillo de San Marcos in St. Augustine, Florida" (after "Florida"); Done
  • I feel something is missing in the prose here, but can't put my finger on it: "Rutherford directed his force from small Loyalist militias to the British encampment and surrounding militias". Do you mean: "he directed his force to attack anything from small Loyalist forces to larger formations including the British encampment and surrounding militias..."? Done
  • the capitalisation of this section header "Later War", probably should just be "Later war" because it is an improper noun; Done
  • in the Later life section, is there a citation for this: "Rutherford died in Sumner County, TN on 10 August 1805"? Done
  • also "Sumner County, TN", probably should be spelt out, not everyone will know what state "TN" is; Done
  • in the Footnotes, but not in the References: "Piecuch p. 15"; Done
  • in the Footnotes, some of the page ranges have endashes, some don't. If you are aiming for FAC, it is best to be consistent and I expect that they will ask you to add them in; Done
  • in the References, I suggest embedding the Google books links. This can be done by simply adding the "|url= " param to the cite book template. Done AustralianRupert (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I've added my support as you've addressed all my comments. I've not spot checked the article for sourcing or copyright issues, though. It is best to get this done prior to FAC, though, so may be one of the subsequent reviewers here might be able to do this. The issue with the image raised above will also need to be sorted before FAC if that is where you are looking to go. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comments Pretty good, but I'm going to pick at some factual issues.
  • "Rutherford began his long career as a soldier in 1760 during the French and Indian War. He was a participant of several battles and skirmishes during the war, most notably the Battle of Fort Duquesne (1758)" -- did he begin his military career in 1758 or 1760? Do we know what sort of unit(s) he was in?
  • It is stated in the lead that his service was in the NC militia. This is nowhere stated in the early parts of the body.

 Done Mentioned that he entered the North Carolina militia at the commencement of his service--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC))

• • "campaign against local Cherokee Indians who were attacking settlers on the western frontier." POV: please tell us why the Cherokee and colonists were at war.

 Done Mentioned their alliance with the British--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC))

I was actually looking for the Cherokee's own casus belli -- according to my readings (for example here), that would be encroachment on their lands. Magic♪piano 18:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Found a good source for this, should be done soon--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC))

• • You should mention that Purrysburg is (was) on the SC-GA border near Savannah (i.e. almost as far away as possible from NC and still in SC).

 Done Clarified location (near Savannah, Georgia)--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC))

• • "a huge blow to the Southern Campaign" - umm, wasn't the "Southern Campaign" British, and Charleston would be a great success to them? (please rephrase this to avoid "Southern Campaign")

 Done Rephrased to "patriot cause"--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC))

• • Please tell us what the NC militia did at Camden, and if possible what role Rutherford played in it (since it does not appear to be one of their finer moments).
  • Do we know who levelled the charges of his brutal attacks?

They seem to have been a collection of reports. The accusers are so far unknown--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC))

• • What years did he serve on the Council of State? What was this body's function?
  • Was his time in the NC senate entirely appointed, or did he ever run for that office? (Seems odd if so...)

 Done According to McDonald he was an "elected" official--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC))

• • There is inconsistency in his senate service dates. First he serves until 1786, then his vote in the 1788 convention costs him his senate seat. ???

 Done True date was 1789--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC))

• • My understanding of the term "Line" (as in "North Carolina Line") is that it referred only to Continental Army units, and did not include militia units.
  • Where was he buried?

Some websites dictate that Rutherford was buried at Old Shiloh Presbyterian Cemetery in Gallatin, Tennessee, though this is dubious. I haven't yet found a source that states his exact resting place; not sure if it is truly known--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC))

-- Magic♪piano 00:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting Magicpiano. Your critiques are always appreciated. Will get on to this soon. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC))

• Source spotcheck

In poking at issues related to Rutherford that are of interest to me, I've done some spot checks on the sourcing. Some points:

• McDonald does not say Rutherford was in the Battle of Fort Duquesne (although he was on the Forbes Expedition); he (McDonald) dances around the issue. I suspect that sources may be insufficiently clear to state this. Some of Washington's men were in the battle, but I've not seen exactly which ones. It's possible that this book provides some more detail, but you'll probably need to track a hardcopy down. (It's also possible that Rutherford was somehow involved the Battle of Fort Ligonier, but the only detailed accounts of that I've seen mention Maryland militia.)
• The URL in Clark does not link to a volume referencing Rutherford (Volume 2, not 25).
• I missed the "short reunion with his family" in McDonald following his release. (There's also an inconsistency there between getting home in September and raising militia in "summer".)
• This is perhaps more an editorial choice, but I would have referred to more modern sources in characterizing Rutherford's activities against the Cherokee. (See e.g. McDonald pp. 90-91, and p. 84, where he characterizes GR's men as "glorified pillagers".)

-- Magic♪piano 21:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't updated in a few days, have been busy. As you know Wikipedia is being shut down temporarily in protest of SOPA. Will try to get as much done before this happens. Otherwise I'll finish everything immediately after it is restored--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC))

• Oppose. Seems to be a lot of issues to be fixed. I'll mention just a few right now.

• The text says he was born "about 1721", but your cited source says about 1731 (the same date given Boatner's Encyclopedia of the American Revolution). Presumably you wrote "1721" because that's what's on the tombstone. Mac Donald mentions both dates, as should you.

 Done Mentioned both dates (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC))

• You say "he embraced the colonist's cause during the Regulator Movement". Don't know what that means, since colonists were on both sides.

 Done Made sentence more specific- "...he embraced the cause against the rebels in...". Should I give a brief background of the War or will this suffice? (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC))

• Rutherford owned a few slaves; it's customary to mention that nowadays, otherwise it looks like the article is trying to hide this.

 Done Added info about his "eight slaves" he owned by his relocation to the frontier--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC))

• The article seems to blur the distinction between service in the militia and the regular army. You have to understand and communicate this distinction when writing about colonial and revolutionary America.
• You write: "Rutherford acquired nearly 13,000 acres of Washington District land awarded to him for his service in the North Carolina Line." That's not what your source says at all. Rutherford did not serve in the North Carolina Line; that's part of the confusion between militia and the regulars. What your source says is that Rutherford bought up the land claims of Continental soldiers.

Fixed that error in the "Later life" section. Will get on to the wider issue later--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC))

That's all I have time to review. This article needs more attention to detail, more familiarity with the soures and the time period. —Kevin Myers 02:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Not promoted --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Polish Underground State

Nominator(s): --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Procedural renomination, as the last one did not generated the minimum of three reviewer comments needed; only one reviewer commented with a support. So, Round 2. I hope we won't have to do a Round 3. Round 1 archive is here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comments on references I'll provide more detailed comments later, but for starters here are some comments on the references used:
  • The full publishing details for Garliński aren't listed until the second time its referenced
    • It's the first page range that cited. Perhaps I should move the full cites to a separate section? What would it be called? I usually don't do it, but for some reason, this article is different. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      • That would be a good approach. You could call the new section something like 'Bibliography' or 'References'.
        • Fixed by reordering. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keegan (2002) wasn't published by 'Psychology Press'
    • Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 'Warszawa' should be 'Warsaw'
    • Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The reference to 'Peter D. Stachura (4 March 2004)' needs work - this appears to be a chapter in the book written by someone else, I'm not sure why the exact date is being used for the publishing details, and you haven't provided the location where the book was published
    • Fixed. Re: what is provide or not: blame http://reftag.appspot.com ; I've asked the author to change the default settings to something more resembling our standards long time ago, to no avail. That said, I consider publishing location pure informational garbage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Alterman and Dallas are also referenced to an exact date for some reason.
    • So....? Is too much information actually against some rule? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      • It's highly unconventional and not useful. It's also not done for all the books you reference.
  • Most of the references need the location at which they were published added
    • I may eventually waste my time on that, but I'll try to avoid dealing with that as long as I can. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      • It's a standard part of referencing books. Many books are published in slightly different editions for American and British-English markets, and this lets readers know exactly which edition has been referenced as the page numbers may differ between editions.
        • I thought ISBNs covered that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The full publishing details for Biskupski et al. are provided twice, but without the location of publishing either time
  • 'The Polish Government-in-Exile's Home Delegature' is a dead link
    • Fixed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • What makes The Polish Underground State and The Home Army (1939–45) a reliable source?
    • Historical organization: London Branch of the Polish Home Army Ex-Servicemen Association, if non-academic. But the author himself is more reliable, likely notable, professor a Polish university, and an author of at least one book on a related topic (review, some bio). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I might be missing something, but that book review is of a book by a different author.
        • Hmmm, weird. Ok, so about Marek Ney-Krwawicz, he is also reliable, and likely notable, PhD in a historical institute with several books. Bio is here: [17]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Similarly, why is Wielkie polowanie: Prześladowania akowców w Polsce Ludowej a reliable source?
    • Reliable newspaper (Rzeczpospolita (newspaper). The author seems a reliable journalist, with many articles coming up, often historical / documentary in nature. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The full publishing details for the Historical dictionary of Poland is provided three times
  • Was 1945: the war that never ended published in 2005 or 2006?
    • Both, I believe - two different editions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The publishing details for Wachowicz are pretty sketchy
    • Expanded. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Sixty million Frenchmen can't be wrong: why we love France but not the French p. 89 doesn't support all of what's cited to it. Judging from it's title, it's not a very serious history book either, and so not a good source.
    • Judging the book by the title is hardly good practice. At least one of the authors has an article on French wikipedia: [18]. English bio blurb here: [19]. I found reviews of another book of theirs, and this one is cited in over a dozen others ([20]). Seems reliable to me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      • It would be better to find a serious book on this topic rather than reference a jokey work which is unlikely to reflect the most recent scholarship. Goodness knows enough has been written on the French resistance.
        • While I'd agree usually, I still dispute calling this "jokey work". Giving something an amusing title does not make one work less worthy of respect (There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom , for example). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The references to Encyklopedia PWN lack publishing details Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Considering it is an online encyclopedia, what else would you like to see? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      • The standard fields in the Cite:web template filled out (eg, date of access, who published the website, and the date it was published) Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose for now at least. This article has a lot to recommend it, but it's rather incomplete.

• The main things which seem to be missing are:
  • Did the Polish Government make any plans to continue resistance if the country was conquered? If not, this should be noted and explained. Likewise, if there were pre-war plans, it should be noted whether they were actually instituted and how effective they were.
    • I assume both of your questions refer to pre-1939 history. I have never heard anything about pre-war plans for resistance. However, correct me if I am wrong, saying so would be ORis. If you or anybody else would have any source that would say so, let me know. Do note that Service for Poland's Victory, the first Polish resistance organization, founded when the fighting was still going on, is mentioned. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The article is heavily focused on institutional structures and high-level political decisions. There's very little material on the involvement of ordinary Poles in the Underground State, what its day to day activities were or the effectiveness of these activities.
    • True, but I see it a the usual split between society/culture articles and the government/state articles. For culture and society, see Polish culture during World War II, linked from the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      • The end result of the split in practice here is that it's unclear what the Underground State actually did and who worked for it. These are key issues to cover.
        • The Civilian section was supposed to address that. Are you sure it does not give a good enough picture? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Given that the Underground State's leaders seem to have had to start from scratch, how did they go about building up their organisation within Poland?
    • I have not run into any detailed accounts, and if they exist, they likely encompass the level of detail that belongs in the articles on individual organization or leaders. Again, a comparison to articles about states does not remind me of any that go into such details (United States article, for example, does not go into any detail of what Founding Fathers did, beyond few generalities and dates). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • What was the German and Soviet response to the Underground State? When did they become aware of its existence, and did they take steps to counter it? How effective where these actions, and did they change over time? Did the occupation forces attempt to counter the Underground State's political messages and activities with their own propaganda, or did they focus only on arresting and killing its members?
    • Hmmm, they were obviously hostile, but the details of the conflict belong again in other articles, mostly on Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) and Polish resistance in World War II, again linked from the article. While I could repeat and easily reference some generalities from those articles, I don't think they would add much, rather than move the focus away from the article. I am, of course, open to counterarguments. PS. I am not aware of sources on the evolution of German and Soviet attitudes to the Underground state, and I can image such sub-articles should eventually be created. That said, it would be mostly a history of anti-partisan operations, at least from the German side. The closest we have ATM is Anti-partisan_operations_in_World_War_II#Against_the_Polish_partisans that I wrote a while back. For Soviets, there was a little more, which should be covered in the cursed soldiers article, through again there is some scope for expansion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't think that you can write an article about an underground organisation without explaining the responses to it by the occupation forces, as this was obviously a major constraint on the Underground State's activities (and would have led to the imprisonment and death of many of its members).
        • I guess we can add a summary of the anti-resistance and anti-culture operations to a new section. Will take a look at that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • How did the Government in Exile communicate with the Underground State, and how effective was this?
    • Thanks, the courier network was not mentioned. It was a major oversight, now fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      • How did couriers travel between Poland and Allied territory? Also, given that German radio direction finding units were pretty good, how did the Underground State go about communicating through this means? (I've read that radio operators in the French Resistance had a life expectancy of about six months after they started broadcasting due to the efficiency of the Gestapo radio direction finding teams; I presume that the Polish radio operators faced similar - if not greater - challenges).
        • Excellent points to cover in a dedicated article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The article states that "Both the extreme left (the communists) and the extreme right (the nationalists) saw themselves in opposition to the Underground State." and at other points briefly notes the Underground State's responses to these movements. However, what the communists and nationalists actually wanted and did and their popular support is never discussed.
    • I'd again consider those to be somewhat off topic. They were not part of the Underground State, so they should not be discussed here in detail. Roughly, right-wingers wanted "Greater Poland for Poles", and communists, the "Polish Soviet Republic". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Given that the article notes that the Underground State adopted policies in response to those proposed by the far right and Communists, and that these organisations were in competition with the Underground State, I think that it's important to the narrative to know what it is that they were proposing and the level of support they enjoyed.
        • I expanded on the communist proposals. I am unaware of any signficiant and serious far-right proposals discussed in the relevant literature. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Only the "Western betrayal" viewpoint is discussed in the article at present (most notably, in the second paragraph of the lead where it's presented as fact). I'm not an expert on this topic, and I do agree that the lack of support of Poland by Churchill and Roosevelt was disgraceful, but I'm pretty sure that there are other views.
    • I am not sure what they would be, and how relevant to the article. I believe the Western betrayal is mentioned in a neutral fashion. If other related POVs are brought to my attention, I'd be happy to consider their inclusion of argue against them, but first, we must speak in some generalities. The only reasonable counterargument I am familiar with is realpolitik, but it is really just a justification for the betrayal, neither of which is really disputable, and the justification itself seems off topic here (again, is most likely discussed in the Western betrayal article). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      • "Abandoned by the Western Allies" links only to the Western Betrayal article, which presents only one perspective.
        • Again: what other perspective is there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Can any images (maps, photos, etc) be added to break up the text? Organisation charts would be helpful.
    • Pictures we can do, I'll add a free image or two of relevant bios. Charts would be great, but I am not aware of the free ones. Would need to find a source, and than even more difficult, an editor with skills to convert them into a free one. (I am still happy about getting File:Armia krajowa 1.png done). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      • It's easy to make org charts with Microsoft Word if you have it.
        • If it's easy, I can find materials, how about you find somebody who can make the chart? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• I also have the more specific comments about the article as it currently stands:
  • "that remained loyal to the Polish Government in Exile in London" - is 'remained' needed?
    • Probably noted. Changed to were. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The 'Definition and historiography' section is actually mainly about post-war historiography and should be placed at the end of the article
    • Ok. Also added remembrance paragraph and adjusted the title accordingly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Eforts to explore this topic were regarded as both illegal and dangerous" - who 'regarded' them as such, and was this actually illegal and dangerous? (I presume so, and if this is the case you could just state it)
    • I no longer have the ref I used in the writing of this para. I don't think it was illegal per se, but there was a lot in the communist regimes that was not explicitly illegal that was in fact quite dangerous (after all, the Stalin's constitutions for the USSR and the Eastern Bloc are still, technically, among the most liberal in the world...). I rewarded the sentence, hope it is better now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      • That works for me
  • "The communist state promoted the view that marginalized the non-communist resistance movement" - this is slightly awkwardly worded
    • As an ESL, I'd appreciate a more clear suggestion here/ --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      • How about "The communist state downplayed the importance of the non-communist resistance movements" or similar?
        • Thanks, changed to. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Reference 7 is cites no less than 40 pages. Please provide a more precise reference.
    • Now 87. I was under the impression that for journals, we do not need to cite exact pages. Am I wrong? In any case, if you look more closely, this full ref cites both the journal page range, and the exact pages (two) used for this particular cite.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Oops, I missed that.
  • "the issue of its uniqueness" - what issue is this?
    • That no country or nation has ever created a similar institution, ever. Feel free to suggest how this could be clarified further. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Please specify this in the article - that's much clearer (and more interesting) than the current wording.
        • Will do. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Given that you say that defining what the Underground State was constituted a challenge for historians, were there different definitions to that used by Salmonowicz?
    • Likely, but I don't recall them, although I am sure we can find some relatively easily on Google Books. Still, as Salmonowicz went to the effort to discuss the problem, I think his definition is the most reliable. Readers interested in the issue can find an extended discussion in his cited book. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "at a time when the Polish defeat in the German invasion of Poland appeared inevitable" - the USSR had also invaded by 27 September
    • Added the link, sees helpful, particularly in the context where we discuss Soviet occupation zone few paras down. I hope you'll agree with me that we don't need to link the Slovak invasion of Poland (1939)... :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "By 1942, most of the conflicts between politicians in occupied Poland and those in exile had been positively resolved" - what's meant by 'positively resolved' in this context? What these conflicts were also isn't described in the article.
    • Reworded to differences.. settled. They seemed minor, mostly technicalities, plus IIRC some differences between who were were the dominant figures (and their pre-war alignments) in exile and in occupied Poland. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "In August 1943 and March 1944, the Polish Secret State announced its long-term plan, which was partly designed to undercut the attractiveness of some of the communists' proposals." - what were the communists' proposals? Also, how much popular support did the Secret State have compared to that of the communists?
    • I cannot find a source on the communist proposal, but again I'd argue even if we had it, it is something to be discussed in the Polish Workers' Party article, not here. Support wise, I'd say significant, but I don't recall a comparison source. Not that you could expect a very reliable poll from that time period, anyway. Perhaps this would help (notes the marginal support for commies pre-war, and the small role of their resistnace during the war), but where would you like to add this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The first two paragraphs of the '1944–1945: Decline and dissolution' section repeat some of the material in the last paragraph of the '1941–1943: Growth' section. Moreover, the narrative jumps about in these paragraphs; I'd suggest spiting them out into a new section and re-arranging their content so it flows better.
    • I am having trouble with that, although I see your point. By any chance, could you try to carry out the split yourself? Perhaps a fresh perspective on this is needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The occasional use of 'Secret State' in the text is confusing; please standardise this to 'Underground State'
    • Done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Does "With the establishment of the TRJN, the government-in-exile stopped being recognized by the Western Allies (France withdrew its recognition on 29 June, followed by United Kingdom and the United States on 5 July), who decided to support the Soviet-backed and increasingly communist TRJN body." really need five supporting references? This actually makes it hard to determine what this is sourced to.
    • Probably tidbits (like dates) are from one source only. Is this a serious problem for MoS? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      • It's a serious problem for WP:V as it means that readers can't actually trace from where things have been sourced.
  • Did the AK have over 400,000 or over 500,000 members? The article says both at present.
    • Clarified that the first one is less precise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • What's the relevance of the link to Polish Resettlement Corps in the See also section?
    • Somewhat relevant to those members of the Underground State who ended up in the West after WWII. Mostly related to the Polish Armed Forces in the West so I didn't feel like it need more than a SA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Polish Secret State (Polish: Tajne państwo) was a term popularized by Jan Karski in his book Story of a Secret State, written and first published in the second half of 1944 in the United States." in note a is unreferenced.
    • Since I cannot find a ref for popularized, I am just going to change it for an example of use. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • What's the purpose of the four external links? The first might not be a reliable source, the second is a dead link and the third and fourth also don't seem to be reliable sources
    • Removed all three. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The 'Political representation' section seems a bit repetitive of material already in the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
    • It's an attempt to present some information from a different angle. A little may be repetitive, but I believe it is useful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Does "Events taking place in 1943 significantly weakened the Polish government-in-exile. A rift developed between Poland and the Soviet Union, an increasingly important ally for the West, particularly after the revelation of the Katyn massacre in 1943 (on 13 April), followed by the breaking-off of diplomatic relations with Poland by the Soviets (on 21 April). The subsequent death (on 4 July) of the charismatic General Sikorski, succeeded by less influential Stanisław Mikołajczyk as the Prime Minister, and General Sosnkowski as the Commander-in-Chief, contributed to the decline." really need six references? This seems to be a fairly straight forward description of events, and could be cited to a single general work. Having seven references makes it almost impossible to determine from where each bit of this passage is actually sourced.
    • Probably each ref is needed for a different part. As we have two sentences here, I'll look into whether we can move some refs around in the near future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Similarly, does "A number of prominent leaders of the Underground State, including the Government Delegate, Jan Stanisław Jankowski and the last AK Commander-in-Chief, General Leopold Okulicki, who decided to reveal themselves and upon the Soviet invitation begun open negotiations with the communist authorities, were arrested and sentenced by the Soviets in Moscow in the infamous Trial of the Sixteen (arrests were carried out in March 1945, and the trial itself took place in June that year)." need five references? This also seems pretty straight forward.
  • Note b is confusing. Was or was not the AK the largest resistance movement? - the paragraph seems to conclude that it probably wasn't, but this isn't made clear. What's the purpose of mentioning the French resistance here?
    • There was a large discussion of it in the past on some other pages. Long story short, sources are contradictory, but what it boils down to is that it was the largest, till near the end of the war, when it was overtaken by the Yuhoslav. Soviets in the mid-war had a similar size. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Ive spot checked some of the citations for accuracy and close paraphrasing (which is my standard practice where I have access to the sources), and while they're generally fine, I have the following comments:
  • Garliński, p. 220 doesn't support the statement that "Research into activities of the Underground State in the Soviet-annexed territories in the 1939–1941 period was particularly difficult" - it just says that not much had been written in English (on page 219) on the topic as of 1975
    • Slightly reworded, backed up with another ref. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • While "Sikorski named General Kazimierz Sosnkowski the head of the ZWZ and Colonel Stefan Rowecki was appointed the commander of the ZWZ German occupation zone. Karaszewicz-Tokarzewski became the commander of the ZWZ Soviet zone, but was arrested in March 1940 by the Soviets when attempting to cross the new German-Soviet border." is supported by Garliński, p. 223, this reference also describes an earlier, and unsuccessful, zonal structure which was in place until January 1940 but doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article.
    • It lasted two months, was mostly on paper, and IMHO seems not even worth a footnote in the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Garliński, p. 223 doesn't appear to support the statement that "The Delegate's Office was divided into departments, initially 20" - please check the reference (page 226 mentions departments, but doesn't say how many there were)
    • Removed 20, correct page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Garliński, p. 224 doesn't support "Those parties, known as the Big Four, were also represented in the Home Political Representation (KRP)" - this is actually on page 234, I think
    • Correct page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • In regards to "Both the extreme left (the communists) and the extreme right (the nationalists) saw themselves in opposition to the Underground State.", Garliński, p. 225 actually says that they did actually oppose "the Government Delegacy and the Home Army", which seems a bit stronger than the current wording
    • Any suggestion how to reword it? Seems fine to me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • In regards to "Armia Krajowa supplied valuable intelligence information to the Allies; 43 percent of all reports received by British secret services from continental Europe in 1939–45 came from Polish sources", the news report doesn't attribute this intelligence to AK specifically or even mention the organisation.
    • The article seems no longer free for me. Anyway, I found a more reliable source here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      • That also doesn't specify that the AK was the source of the intelligence (it uses the term 'Polish intelligence services').
        • I rewarded it per source. At that point I am not prepared to argue it was AK, I still need to read and write more articles on the history of Polish intelligence. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "The program was criticized by the nationalist factions, for being too socialist, and not "Christian" enough" - the source (Kersten (1991), pp. 51-52) appears to state that the nationalists' main criticism of the program was that it was too 'red'. This passage in the reference also appears to say that they were concerned that it would also be a step away from the borders of "Great Poland". Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Would you suggest expansion? Feel free to do so if you wish; I am not sure what would be too undue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      • The source provides an emphasis which is missing from the article as well as an additional criticism Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the very extensive review of sources. I'll be replying above as I find time to address the issues. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Since there are so many separate points here, can we cross out the ones that have been addressed? Feel free to cross out my replies to those as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ping. Can I assume that everything has been addressed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Afraid not. I still don't think that this article provides a comprehensive history of the Underground State per my above comments. Have you addressed the above issues with the references? You haven't struck the ones which you've followed up on, and references 77 and 78 still don't support the statement that this intelligence came from the AK as I noted above. The inconsistencies with how the references are presented also remains an issue. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe all should be addressed but Garlinski, whose article I'll access soon again. Can you confirm that this is all that remains now? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid maintaining my oppose vote. There's still very little material on the German and Soviet occupation authorities response to the Underground State, some relatively simple material is still cited to too many references for readers to be able to determine what sources were actually used, and the article is still heavily weighted towards discussing the political structure of the state and not what it actually did, and failed to do, on the ground (to the extent to which this is covered its stated that the state was active in various areas, but it's never explained whether this was effective and how these tasks were carried out given the extreme nature of the German occupation regime). Nick-D (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Supportive comments (I'm on wiki-break and have trouble responding in time, hence an early support; in general the article deserves positive assessment and most of my suggestions are minor anyway).
  • Full Garliński citation should appear the first time his work is used, not the last time. Switching to a different citation system (for instance separating in-line citations from references) might be a good idea, but if that's not an option, why not move the full citation to the first time it is used (currently No. 2).
    • Fixed.
  • Red links. I created a stub for Main Political Council, but there are some more red links that need some love.
    • Per WP:RED, red links are perfectly acceptable. Not that I don't stub many, but even FAs are permitted to have red links. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The first chapter (1939–1940: Formation) seems a little too detailed. You can safely disregard this comment as I'm not sure myself what should be done with it, but I get an impression that the main focus gets lost somewhere. I would expect less info on who was appointed to what office and more on what is "underground education, social security and justice". I know this sounds vague, it's but an impression.
    • I think I agree with you, but IIRC, this is what the sources focus on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • In general, the article is focused on the political side of things but would IMHO benefit from more real-life examples. Say, a para on how the underground courts operated, a para on various underground schools, universities and whatnot, a para on how the publishing scene operated and so on. I know those are already explained in separate articles, but these were all important aspects of the Secret State and explaining them would tell the reader how the state actually operated day-to-day.
    • Hmmm, I am not sure if such expansion would not dilute the focus of the article. If we go into that level of detail, we would need a lot of sections; it would involve a major rewrite, expanding the article significantly. I am not totally against that, but I am not sure I have time and will for such a rewrite now, particularly as I am - again - not totally convinced this is necessary (I think the article is focused and comprehensive as it is). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I would move the last para of 1944–1945: Decline and dissolution to (or duplicate it in) the lead section. //Halibutt 12:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Good idea, done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Re: expansion. IMHO what I mentioned above is precisely what made the Polish Secret State different from other resistance organisations and projects of the epoch. Instead of loosely-related groups of guys with guns, in Poland we had a fully-grown state, complete with public defenders defending accused Gestapo agents in courts of law (instead of just shooting them), with a well-established social welfare system with subsidies for artists, with hundreds of high schools and universities issuing diplomas and valid education certificates... So, in my honest opinion these are not trivia, these are basic facts, basic in the sense that they are precisely what made the Polish Secret State exceptional. //Halibutt 21:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments: I reviewed this during the last ACR. As there have been some changes since then, I have gone over it again, looking mainly at prose. I have the following suggestions. Apologies for the long list, but I hope you will find it useful. Happy to discuss anything you disagree with: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I wonder if an English version of "File:Armia krajowa 1.png" couldn't be created. I see that there is currently a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop for the maps in Battle of Bautzen (1945). Would it be possible to list this one as well?
    • If those pan out, I'll ask for this one, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • in the lead, this could be a little tighter: "The first elements of the Underground State were put in place in the final days ". Perhaps consider: "The first elements of the Underground State were established in the final days..."
  • in the lead, I suggest reordering the sentences in the second paragraph of the lead. Specifically the first and the second should probably be swapped around and joined with a co-ordinating conjuction;
  • in the lead, this could be tighter: "war, many involved with the Underground State were prosecuted...". Perhaps try: "war, many Underground State members were prosecuted...";
  • in the lead, this seems potentially POV: "Abandoned by the Western Allies, finding it impossible ". I suggest rewording slightly, " Believing themselves to have been abandoned by the Western Allies, finding it impossible...";
    • I think that would be weaseling. The Underground State was abandoned by the Western Allies, that's a simple fact and rather hard to dispute. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, I'll leave it up to you to decide. I strongly recommend trying to reword it somehow before taking it to FAC, but I'm not going to make a big deal of it. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • in the lead, "Underground State (the estimates for membership in Armia Krajowa alone are often given at approaching half a million people), and they". I suggest adding the information in brackets into a proper footnote, as it is probably a bit too much detail for the lead. Alternatively, as it it appears to be covered in the 1944-45 section, it is probably not needed in the lead at all);
    • I think that's an eye-drawing statistic, and would be inclined to leave it. It's... fact-candy :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • in the lead, "and its culture (see Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles, The Holocaust in Poland and Soviet repressions of Polish citizens)". As above, I suggest adding the "see Nazi crimes..." bit into a footnote as it is probably too much for the lead. Again, as it is covered in the 1944-45 section, it may not be required in the lead;
  • in the History section, this is probably a bit repetitive: "The creation of SZP is seen as the first building block of the Underground State." (it is already been said in that paragraph: "The Underground State traces its origins to the Service for Poland's Victory (Służba Zwycięstwu Polski, SZP) organization";
  • inconsistent presentation: " the Polish Government in Exile" v. "the Polish government in exile, envisioned";
  • in the 1939-1940 section, the wikilink for "Commander-in-Chief" should probably be moved to the earliest mention;
  • there is a missing open bracket here: "The communists, in their increasingly radical What We Fight For declarations from March and November 1943), were proposing ";
  • "which they equaled to slavery". This might sound better as: "which they equated to slavery";
  • this is inconsistent: "in their increasingly radical What We Fight For declarations " v. "Underground State's declaration "What the Polish Nation is Fighting For" declared..." (why is one in italics and the other not?);
  • in the 1941-43 section, the wikilink for "socialist" should probably be moved to its first mention;
  • in 1941-43 section, inconsistent spelling: "nationalization" v. "nationalisation";
  • in the 1941-1943 section, overlink "nationalization" and "nationalisation" are both linked;
  • in the 1941-1943 section, irregular capitalisation: "unsuccessful Warsaw Uprising part of the Operation". Probably should just be lower case "operation";
  • in the 1944-1945 section, inconsistent capitalisation: "as the Prime Minister..." v. "in the prime minister's role";
  • in the 1944-1945 section, "few independent politicians like Mikołajczyk that attempted". Might sound smoother as: "the few independent politicians like Mikołajczyk who attempted..."
  • in the Structure/civilian section, this is inconsistent: "The government in exile, based..." v. "The government-in-exile, located..."
  • in the Structure/civilian section, "located first in France and later in the United Kingdom, was represented " probably should be moved into the previous sentence. This would reduce the repetition of "based in London" and would make it clearer, IMO;
  • in the Notes section: "Several sources note that Polish Armia Krajowa was the largest resistance..." Probably doesn't need the "Polish" as it doesn't sound grammatically correct and would be recognised without it. I suggest: "Several sources note that the Armia Krajowa was the largest resistance";
  • per the example in WP:LAYOUT, I believe that the See also section should be placed above the Notes section. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    • G'day, is someone in a position to action these comments? If so, I'd be more than happy to do another quick read with a view to supporting; if you disagree with my comments, please just say so and we can discuss. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
      • My bad, this slipped through my watchlist. Will try to address most issues soon. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Done all but the ones I commented upon above. Thanks for your suggestions, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
          • I've added my support. It might pay to see if Nick is in a position to take a look to see if all of his concerns have been addressed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 / not promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Stanisław Koniecpolski

Nominator(s): _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me}

A biography of one of the best known Polish military commanders, from the Golden Age of Poland. Also, an illustration of how our standards change. This was one of my first FAs years ago, in the days of Brilliant Prose. Earlier this year I got around to adding inline cites, and bringing it to a GA status. Now, I hope we can move it forward to A-class, and eventually, FA-class. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I think the lead needs some enlargement, and maybe some prose tweaks. I just don't think we get enough of the man through it compared to the rest of the article, which is commendably thorough. I would however strongly recommend that more sources should be added to complement Podhorodecki, which appears to cover two-thirds of the references and approximately that of the prose. At the moment it may just about meet "relevant body of published knowledge" (A1), but in the current state it will struggle with FACR #1 "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Let's get one thing straight (my fault, as I did not state it above). There are no other sources. Well, I guess one could try PSB just to get everything, but it would still be a tertiary source. Koniecpolski's entry would be in the tome from 1967-1968 so Podhorecki's book from 1978, which is the one and only book dedicated to him should be seen as a more recent source, too. I'll try to expand the lead soon. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 08:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Not promoted --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Poznań 1956 protests

Nominator(s): _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me}

A GA of mine about a strike that was suppressed with a military force in communist Poland. I'd appreciate comments on what needs to be done to make it A-class worthy. Thank you, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, you asked about A-class... a lot of the reading in English still needs to be done for A-class, but the comments below were aimed firmly at getting this FAC (via A). Fifelfoo (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• The volume of scholarly english language accounts needs to be expanded. Please let me know the quality of your library for obtaining some of these (offer of help):
  • T Kemp‐Welch "Khrushchev's 'secret speech'and polish politics: The spring of 1956" Europe‐Asia Studies, 1996 (JSTOR)
  • M Osa "Mobilizing Structures and Cycles of Protest: Post-Stalinist Contention in Poland, 1954-1959" Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 2001
    • who cites: Ladorski, Henryk. 1992. Niepokonani Poznań 1956 [The Unknown Poznan 1956]. Poznań: Zwiàzek Powstańców Poznańskiego Czerwca 1956, Druk. Pallotinum.
    • Machcewicz, Pawel. 1993. Polski Rok 1956 [Polish Year 1956]. Warsaw: Wyd. Mówia¸ wieki.
    • Osa, Maryjane. Forthcoming. Solidarity, and Contention: The Networks of Polish Opposition, 1956-1981. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  • P Machcewicz… Rebellious satellite: Poland, 1956 2009 - Stanford University Press (BOOK REVIEW OF THE SAME: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14682745.2010.493714 )
  • T Kemp-Welch "Dethroning Stalin: Poland 1956 and its legacy" Europe-Asia Studies, 2006
  • FG Sanín Elite perceptions of workers, conflict and socialism: the case of Poland, 1956-1989 - Science & Society, 1995
  • J Granville From the Archives of Warsaw and Budapest: A Comparison of the Events of 1956 - East European Politics & Societies, 2002
  • AR Johnson Tinderbox: East-Central Europe in the Spring, Summer, and Early Fall of 1956 (review) - Journal of Cold War Studies, 2006
  • P Machcewicz Intellectuals and Mass Movements. The Study of Political Dissent in Poland in 1956 - Contemporary European History, 1997
  • D Li… The Polish Crisis of 1956 and Polish-Chinese. Relations Viewed from Beijing - PISM Series, 2007
  • (Primary, but English Primary:) HH Semmes Justice behind the Iron Curtain: Polish Lawyers Fight for the Criminally Accused - ABAJ, 1957 - HeinOnline
  • P Piotrowski Mapping the Legacy of the Political Change of 1956 in East European Art - Third Text, 2006 - Taylor & Francis
  • A Deighton 'A Different 1956': British Responses to the Polish Events, June–November 1956 - Cold War History, 2006 - Taylor & Francis
  • This: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5171572
• So I'm going to want to see more Machcewicz and Kemp-Welch for starters :) Granville does a bunch of sociological comparative Poznan vs Budapest 1956.
• Then you'd need to look through the better ones of those for their citations :).
• We also need to get rid of the Polish civic history and replace it with scholarly material. The 2007 translation was of mixed quality (readable English, but not brilliant prose by any stretch), and so I'd suggest hard copyediting by the lead editor, then a formal request for copyediting so your prose shines before FAC.
  • Writing: copy edit, "While intelligentsia expressed its dissatisfaction" surely "their dissatisfaction" due to the collective noun being unorganised human beings?
    • Done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• On content:
  • What about Social Democrats and other non-Bolshevik socialists? In Hungary in 1956 they survived at plant level despite the forced mergers and often became activists; I'd suspect similar structures in the underground of Poznan. Here the high quality secondaries will help!
  • In the Aftermath the effect on the Soviet Union, the longer term effects on the PUWP, the Gomulka thaw's use of the threat of force against Soviet troops, the comparison to Hungary and East Germany (in historiography) are underworked. The legal fall out needs to be better worked. If there is any data in the historiography on working class self-organisation 23-30 June this needs to be included. The narrative of the actual military conflict needs to be better worked in terms of identifying command, unit, order, movement, action and result (even if sketchy, at the moment the object and subject of sentences aren't clear due to needing clearer writing). The modern remembrance probably needs more finessed identification of the role of memory of the strikes. Oh yeah, and the aftermath in the West!
• Good luck, this is a big one. About the best I can say is we need it, and the art is good! The general narrative structure is fine, though remember when reading the historiography to look for alternate structures and weights in the highest quality works. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Lots of good comments, thank you! This will definitely improve the article! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
    • The quality of sourcing, and the treatment of "1956" in general probably mean that you can justify "The events of 1956 in Poland" and "The events of 1956 in Central Europe" as articles from a scholarly base if you're interested in creating them in the long term. Many scholars like Granville treat this as a failed Central European Revolution (effectively)—correspondingly Zoltan Tildy. This is of course separate to Gormulka's appointment, the Poznan crisis, and the Hungarian revolution. But for now, those seem to be the most directly connected 1956 works. If you ping my talk page over christmas I'm sure I can find a citation from one of my Hungary 1956 tomes doing a comparison of Poznan and Budapest, and possibly try to make a copy of it available for research purposes. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Those would be fascinating articles; thank you for alerting me to their notability. I am not sure when I'll get around to creating them, time-wise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • "independent course of 'local, national socialism' instead". (I think that the MOS would ask for double quotation marks here. There are other examples throughout the article that will probably need similar treatment);
  • there seems to be a mixture between US and British English variations. For example "Defense" and "armored" (US), but "Armoured", "Mechanised" and "labourers" (British), please make this consistent;
    • Fixed (the ones mentioned). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • a second comma should probably be added here: "another IPN scholar, Stanisław Jankowiak" (after "Jankowiak");
    • this has been dealt with. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • a second comma should probably be added here: "Stanisław Hejmowski, the lawyer who defended them" (after "them");
    • this has been dealt with. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • something missing here: "the workers' demands were mostly of economic nature" (Perhaps try: "the workers' demands were mostly of an economic nature);
    • this has been dealt with. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • in the References, is this a typo: "Warswaw Voice" (I don't know, but should it be "Warsaw Voice"?);
    • this has been dealt with. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • the lead mentions 400 tanks, but I can't seem to find this in the body of the article;
  • the infobox mentions 30 AFVs, but I can't see this in the body (you mention 2 armoured personnel carriers and 30 vehicles, is this what the infobox is referring to?);
    • this has been dealt with. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • the infobox mentions 200-300 armed fighters, but this figure doesn't appear to be discussed in the body;
    • Infobox figures have been adjusted and referenced. Also, they are mentioned in lead. Is MoS fine with that, or should those numbers be added somewhere to no-lead section?
      • From reading WP:LEAD, I believe there is some leeway to allow mentioning minor information in the lead and nowhere else, but usually it is best to discuss everything that is in the lead somewhere in the body of the article. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • the lead says between 57 and 78 people were killed, but the infobox says between 53 and 78;
    • Doh. I'll need to get the book again to verify that. One is a typo, most likely, but which one? Other sources I have access to, so I'll simply replace it with one that confirms 57. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • the figure of 78 killed doesn't appear in the body of the article (I found the figure of 74, though, is this what you meant to have in the infobox and lead?)
    • I have done some tweaks based on available sources. I've removed that number, and the 74; the higher count is referenced to the imprecise "over 100" statement. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • the casualties for the security forces (8 killed) appear in the infobox, but don't appear to be discussed in the body of the article. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• G'day, I've had another look over this article. I have the following final points (some of which I missed last time, sorry):
  • this is a little unclear: "57 dead and about 600 wounded (including eight on the side of the government)". Specifically, "including eight" - eight what? Eight killed or eight wounded. My suggestion is to change this to: "57 dead and about 600 wounded (including eight killed and several wounded on the side of the government)";
  • in the lead the 13-y-o boy is mentioned but he is not mentioned in the body. If it is is significant enough to go in the lead, I feel it really should go in the body;
  • the number of tanks probably needs to be worked into the body somehow, as currently the reader doesn't really get a good idea of the scale of the forces deployed. 390 tanks is a lot of armour to send against protesters;
  • I really feel that you need to mention the armed fighters in the body somewhere. What were they armed with? What did they do?
  • this is only a minor issue, but currently your citations out not in numerical order. For instance: "and the situation changed dramatically.[7][8][6][1]". If you take this to FAC, they will probably say that you should re-order them like so: "and the situation changed dramatically.[1][6][7][8]". There are a number of examples of this, which might need attention;
  • "Many historians consider the Poznań 1956 protests to be an important milestone in modern history of Poland..." I wonder if you should specifically provide a couple of examples of historians that hold this view. For instance, "Many historians, such as John Smith and Mary Kafoops, consider the Poznań 1956 protests to be an important milestone in modern history of Poland...". The reason I say this is that "Many historians" is open to challenge per WP:W2W , so by providing examples you would be helping to mitigate this. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    • G'day, I don't want to sound pushy, Piotr, but are you able to respond to my comments? I would be more than happy to support the article if these last couple could be addressed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry about that, 3k things on the watchlist is making me miss a lot. I need to fix that. In the meantime, I've decided to put improvement of this article on hold, primarily as Fifelfoo raised a lot of good points about the need to expand this, points which I don't feel I have the time or will to address however. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
        • OK, no worries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 / no consensus to promote -- Ian Rose (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Harry Lee (cricketer)

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because having passed GA (review here), I'm looking to move this article on towards FA. I have brought this article to an A-class review here, rather than a standard peer review, as I thought it would be the more insightful of the two. Cricket is clearly my main area of expertise, and it would be good to get some knowledgeable eyes on the military section of the article. Feedback on whether the cricket information is understandable to non-experts would also be useful. Harrias ^talk 14:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Suggestions: sorry, not as in depth as I would like, as I'm feeling a bit under the weather:
  • the duplicate link checker tool reports a few instances of possible overlink: all-rounder, Test cricket, Marylebone Cricket Club, Pelham Warner, Warwickshire County Cricket Club, Hampshire County Cricket Club, Nottinghamshire County Cricket Club, Gloucestershire County Cricket Club, Somerset County Cricket Club, Cambridge University Cricket Club, Lord's cricket ground, J. W. Hearne, Harry Altham and E. W. Swanton;
    • I've removed a number of instances; those that remain are, I think, required. For example, Test cricket is linked to in the infobox, lead and in the section on Test cricket, which I think is appropriate, and Lord's cricket ground is linked in the prose and the caption for the image of Lord's. Harrias ^talk 14:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Lee did bowl against Gloucestershire, remaining wicketless from nine overs in the match". This might sound a little smoother as: "Lee did bowl against Gloucestershire, but remained wicketless from nine overs in the match";
    • Changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 14:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • do you know anything about the training that Lee received? I assume he did some training before deploying to France, if you know it you might just add one sentence saying what he did and where it was undertaken;
  • there is a slight inconsistency in your terminology. Mostly you use "First World War", but in the military infobox you use "World War I". This should probably be the same;
    • Changed the infobox to use "First World War" as well. Harrias ^talk 14:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Lee was part of D Company, which along with C Company lead the Kensingtons during the assault..." should this be: "Lee was part of D Company, which along with C Company led the Kensingtons during the assault"?
    • Changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 14:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "He was discharged from the army on 4 December 1915, with the Silver War Badge". Are we sure that he received the badge upon discharge? The Silver War Badge article says it wasn't in general issue until September 1916;
  • "The Nyanza was torpedoed twenty miles out of Plymouth", you might consider adding the {{convert}} template to the distance;
    • Changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 14:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "The rest of the journey was completed without incident, despite a rumour that the Emden, a German light cruiser lay in wait for the convoy", probably needs a second comma after "light cruiser" to denote the subordinate clause;
    • Changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 14:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "a fact which he describes as "cause and effect" of his poor form in 1924 and 1925", might sound better as "a fact which he describes as 'the "cause and effect" of his poor form in 1924 and 1925";
    • Changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 14:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • do we know anything about his private life? Did he marry? Did he have any children? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
    • There is very little in any sources I have about him; even his autobiography (which is admittedly mostly about cricket) doesn't mention much. I might have a look in the National Archives for any birth/marriage certificates at some point though. Harrias ^talk 14:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments; they may not be as in depth as you'd like, but they're still very useful! I've responded to most, and am looking into the others. Harrias ^talk 14:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

G'day, I'm happy enough with your changes to support for A-class. If the sources don't provide information, that's fine. I would recommend trying to fill in those small gaps before going to FAC, if at all possible, though. I have only reviewed prose, content and referencing density. You will need someone to check images, citation style, and reference spot checks. It might also be good to have someone who writes cricket articles a lot join this review. Is there anyone over at the cricket project, who you could ask to take a look? They might be able to point out any subject specific requirements that I couldn't. I love the game (playing and watching), but have no experience writing about it so I might have missed something. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at a couple of the issues raised above having originally added a lot of the military detail. I've tried to explain a little more about where he might have trained. Unfortunately what survives of his records is not very clear on this point (most other ranks records for the British Army were badly affected by a WWII bombing raid. Some of Lee's records were in a set which happened to be with the Ministry of Pensions at the time, so some of his papers survive, but they are not particularly detailed (and the scanned image is a little unclear in places). I have attempted to finesse the question of when exactly he would have received the Silver War Badge.

I note also that in the GA review there ws a query as to whether his service records, hosted by Ancestry, were an appropriate resource. Obviously they are WP:PRIMARY (though official), but I believe they satisfy the "reliably published" caveat of WP:NOR. Ancestry has the images as a Licensed Internet Associate of The National Archives. More information about what this process involves can be seen at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/opportunity-2010.pdf. Similarly, some of the other resources used are published directly by The National Archives. As such they form part of the Public Record of the United Kingdom. Note that I cannot be considered unbiased in regard to The National Archives however. David Underdown (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, David. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Post-closure review (I edit-conflicted with the closer)

Comments:

• External links checked. All seem fine.
• Dab links checked. Again all's well.
• Alt text checked. Nothing missing, but some of the text could be more descriptive of the image (eg rather than "A cricket pavilion" perhaps "A large red-brick building containing spectator galleries overlooks a neatly mown and rolled grass cricket field"?). This isn't really necessary for milhist ACR but may be picked up at FAC.
• Spotcheck of references seems fine. Just one point:
  • "...and Lee finished third in both the batting and bowling tables, behind Hearne and Hendren amongst the batsmen..." Presumably you are talking about batting averages here rather than runs scored? It might help to clarify that in the text.
• Original research: One thing that particularly jumped out at me is the sentence "In truth, Lee was not simply an average county cricketer; his 18,594 first-class runs for Middlesex rank him eleventh in their all-time list...". The references support the figures you give, but you appear to be making a value judgement as a editor based on those figures. We can't do that - to write what you've written we'd need a source that explicitly supports that opinion. This relates in a small way to some of the concern above about drawing synthesis from primary sources.See WP:OR and WP:SYNTH for more information.

Hope this helps for future development, EyeSerene^talk 11:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

---

Withdrawn by nominator EyeSerene^talk 12:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

World War II and American animation

Nominator(s): Adamdaley (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... This article is reasonably close to being an "A-class" article with the amount of information, images, references etc. I would like to see it "A-class". Because I've never promoted an article to "A-class" before. Adamdaley (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comments: Interesting article, Adam. I can't comment on content as I don't have any knowledge in this area, but I will try to help out in other areas:
  • "File:Education for Death.jpg" is a fair use image, but the image description page currently doesn't have a fair use rationale for use in this article;
  • "File:Ducknazi.jpg" doesn't have a fair use rationale for use in this article;
  • "File:Fifthcolumnmouse.jpg" doesn't have a fair use rationale for use in this article;
  • the images lack alt text. While it is not an A-class requirement, you might consider adding it in;
  • I'm not sure of the referencing standards required for this type of article, but there are a number of paragaphs that are seemingly unsourced. I suspect that even for something like this, for A-class all paragraphs will need to at least end in a citation. A greater depth of sourcing might be required if paragraphs draw information from multiple sources;
  • in the lead, "On December 8, 1941 the U.S. Army began working". There should probably be a second comma after "1941" per Wikipedia:Checklist;
    • I've done this one. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "War bonds perhaps received..." There should probably be a wiki link for "war bond" here;
    • I've done this one. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I suggest adding a wikilink "Henry Morgenthau";
    • I've done this one. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "sent by an irate Hitler", probably best to use Hitler's full name as it is the first mention, and to add a wikilink;
    • I've done this one. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • if articles exist, you could probably link on first mention to Bugs Bunny, Pluto, Minnie Mouse, Donald Duck, etc.
    • I've done this one. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • this sentence probably needs to be reordered: "“RESTRICTED” is the first word that is shown in the beginning of a film that discusses the type of glue used for wooden aircraft for the film, Aircraft Wood Repair because of its sensitive content". (repetition "of a film" and "for the film");
    • I've done this one. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "because autopilot functions were new to aircrafts", the plural of aircraft is just aircraft;
    • I've done this one. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "to identify U.S. Cruisers". Not sure about the capitalisation here, my suggestion is "to identify U.S. cruisers";
    • I've done this one. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Rules of the Nautical Road was a Naval training film", probably should be lower case "naval training film" (Naval is not a proper noun here);
    • I've done this one. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • suggest wikilinking to "G.I. (military)";
    • I've done this one. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • wikilink "Warner Bros.";
    • I've done this one. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • wikilink "Franklin Delano Roosevelt";
    • I've done this one. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "resembles the Tojo bucktooth grin", general readers might not know who Tojo was, so you will probably need to wikilink at least;
    • I've done this one. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • wikilink Winston Churchill;
    • I've done this one. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "The cartoon was originally titled Donald Duck in Nuzi Land" (should the title be displayed in italics?);
    • I've done this one. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • there is a typo here: "Der Fueher's Face", I think it should be "Der Fuehrer’s Face";
    • I've done this one. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • typo: "and die for his Fueher", I think it should be "and die for his Fuehrer"
    • I've done this one. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "replaced with Mein Kampf", I think Mein Kampf should be presented in italics and be wikilinked (the later wikilink should be moved here);
    • I've done this one. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "swastika" could probably be linked also;
    • I've done this one. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • the template at the bottom of the article might be better presented in collapsed form. Usually this can be achieved by adding "|state=collapsed" to the mark up. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
    • this one didn't work. As it requires some coding work to be done on the template, I suggest not worrying about it. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I've implemented some of these comments. Adam, are you able to action the rest, please? As nominator you will need to respond to the comments that have been made here and action the requests, otherwise the review will probably not be successful. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comments:
• An interesting article (I've always been a fan of those Donald Duck films!), but I've some slight concerns over the references in places:
• "War bonds perhaps received the most advertising and press. Animated cartoons allowed the government to spread their message in a much more entertaining manner." - what's the source for these assessments? The reference seems to be "^ Warner Bros. and U.S. Treasury Dept., Robert Clampett, "Bugs Bunny Bond Rally", 1943, Film", which doesn't look like it would be a likely source.
• "The government also used animation studios like Walt Disney to encourage people to pay their taxes promptly." - this feels a bit close to OR, in that its source is then a sequence of original films, which are analysed to support the statement.
• "The Disney team was also commissioned by the government’s agricultural division to make a short film about food in America. The film highlighted the importance of the American farmer. It was meant to alleviate fears by giving detailed numbers on the amount of food produced by America alone so that Americans could rest assured knowing how much food was available to them." - what was the reference for this?
• "Animation was co-opted in the 1940s for training purposes." - this would need a reference as written, as it implies that animation wasn't used in the 1930s for training purposes, and implies a particular way of commissioning films.
• "The most elaborate training film, Disney's Stop That Tank!,..." again, no reference beyond the film itself. In whose view is this the most elaborate film, etc.
• " Those in the Army and Marine Corps were familiar with the names Private Snafu and Lance Corporal Schmuckatelli." - again, a source would be needed for this.
• "Some films were more potent with propagandistic symbolism than others.... This message of appeasement and signing a truce would have been all too familiar to the adults in the theaters who were probably with their children..." Again, unreferenced - the only reference in this paragraph is to the original film.
• If you're after some references for these and others, worth trying Rekha Sharma's article "Drawn-out Battles", which does an overview of the literature on the uses of animation in the period (p. 75 in here. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comments:
• this is not a formal requirement, but I think it is advisable to go for WP:GAN before A-class.
• "Propaganda Technique in World War I" needs a page number
• wait, are all the references here but one film references?? It raises a major WP:OR flag to me. I understand we occasionally use film references and such for fiction plots, but such an article should be referenced primarily with books and academic articles, not primary source films.
• MoS failure with regards o WP:LEAD. Lead shoudl summarize the article and should contain no unique information. It seems to me that the lead here fails on both counts.
• While I personally recommend increased citation density, up to every single sentence, I know this is not a required standard. Nonetheless, this article fails even the "one reference per paragraph" requirement, as I count at least two paragraphs (one very long) missing any reference.
• Please ping me on my talk page if you'd like me to take another look and respond promptly to any issues raised here. I may not notice changes here very quickly otherwise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

---

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